Family Law

Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh

Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2016

Facts

Vivek Singh and Romani Singh married in November 2007.
Their daughter, Saesha, was born in October 2008.
The father was an Army officer, while the mother worked as a teacher at a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Delhi.
Serious matrimonial conflict arose in August 2010.
The mother left the matrimonial home, but the father retained the child, who was then below two years of age.
The mother filed guardianship proceedings seeking custody.
The Family Court allowed the father to retain custody.
The Delhi High Court reversed the decision and granted custody to the mother.
Because of interim Supreme Court orders and prolonged litigation, the child continued living exclusively with the father for several years.
By the time the matter was finally heard, the child expressed a wish to remain with him.

Whether the child’s long residence and stated preference required continuation of the father’s custody.
Whether prolonged exclusive influence by one parent could distort the child’s view of the other parent.
What arrangement best protected the child’s welfare.

The welfare of the child prevails over:
statutory parental preference;
possession;
interim arrangements;
the legal rights claimed by either parent.
The child’s preference is relevant but must be evaluated according to:
age;
maturity;
surrounding influence;
emotional freedom.
A custodial parent has a duty to encourage the child’s relationship with the other parent.
Parental alienation occurs where one parent’s hostility influences the child to reject or distrust the other parent.
A status quo created through litigation should not automatically become decisive.

The Court acknowledged that the child had lived with the father for most of her remembered life.
Removing her abruptly could cause emotional disturbance.
However, the long arrangement resulted partly from interim orders and delay, not from a final determination that the mother was unfit.
The child’s stated preference therefore had to be examined carefully.
She had remained almost entirely under the father’s influence and had limited meaningful contact with her mother.
The Court observed that intense hostility between the parents could unconsciously shape the child’s perception.
It discussed parental alienation as harmful because it:
forces the child into a loyalty contest;
makes one parent appear entirely blameworthy;
deprives the child of an independent relationship with both parents.
The child required regular involvement of both parents for balanced emotional development.
The mother was a trained teacher and could provide:
direct personal care;
educational guidance;
admission to the school where she taught.
The Court did not declare the father unfit.
Instead, it held that the mother deserved a real opportunity to care for the child, rather than mere short visitation.
To avoid abrupt disruption, custody was connected with the next academic session and was made subject to later review.

The mother was granted custody for one complete academic year.
The father was directed to cooperate in securing the child’s admission to the mother’s Kendriya Vidyalaya.
Custody was to be handed over shortly before the academic session.
The arrangement was kept open for review and modification.
Use this case for: parental alienation, evaluation of a child’s preference and the need to maintain a genuine relationship with both parents.