The Supreme Court has discussed the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) in a judgment delivered in a case between an estranged couple over custody of their children.
PAS is a syndrome in which a parent who has custody of the child creates feelings of dissatisfaction in the child toward the other parent, which ultimately influences the child's preference for a parent in a legal custody case.
“Parental alienation” is not a diagnosable syndrome, but rather a process of manipulation of children by one parent against the other through what is known as “alienating behavior.” It is fundamentally a question of fact.” The court quoted from a judgment of an English court, namely the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in Re C (“parental alienation”; instruction of an expert). [2023] EWHC 345 (Fam).
The judgment also quoted from the discussion in the precedent case Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 regarding the psychological impact of PAS on children:
i) First, it places the child in the middle of a loyalty competition, a competition that is impossible to win. The child is asked to select the preferred parent. No matter what choice he or she makes, the child will most likely end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. In the vast majority of cases, the child wants and needs a relationship with each parent that is as independent as possible, regardless of their own conflicts.
(ii) Secondly, the child is required to reassess reality. It is portrayed that one parent is solely responsible for all problems and has no positive qualities. Both claims represent a parent's distortion of reality.
The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma held this discussion in the context of dealing with the argument of one of the disputing spouses that the children preferred the other parent due to the feelings of alienation instilled in them.
In this context, the court reiterated that courts cannot simply infer a parent's PAS.
“Courts should not hastily and without identifying individual cases of 'alienating behavior' label a parent as a propagator and/or potential promoter of such behavior. The above designation has far-reaching implications that should not be attributed or attributed to any individual. “Parents regularly”
“Accordingly, it is our considered opinion that courts must endeavor to identify individual instances of 'alienating conduct' in order to invoke the principle of parental alienation to overcome the favoritism expressed by the minor children.”
In the present case, the court concluded, on the basis of the facts, that the applicant could not be accused of engaging in “alienating behavior”.
The Court also reaffirmed the principle that the “welfare” of the minor children is the most important consideration in deciding an application for guardianship under the Act in the exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction.
The judgment stated that the matter should be decided on the basis of a holistic and all-encompassing approach, which includes, inter alia: (i) the socio-economic and educational opportunities that can be made available to the minor children; (ii) health care and general well-being of children; (iii) the ability to provide a physical environment that is conducive to growing youth but also takes into account the preference for minor children in accordance with Section 17(3) of the Guardians and Wards Act.
Case: Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 356
Click here to read the ruling
Comments are closed.