Skip to content

A v B, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 276

Neutral citation: 2026 SCC OnLine Del 276
Court: High Court of Delhi (Division Bench)
Decided: 2026-02-01
Panel: Anil Kshetarpal J. and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J.

Why this case matters

A v B is the first reported Indian custody-transfer decision on parental-alienation grounds in the post-Vivek Singh High Court line. The Delhi High Court Division Bench (Anil Kshetarpal J. and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J., February 2026) transferred custody of the minor child to the father on findings of 'sustained parental alienation' by the mother. A v B operates the custody-and-care welfare line under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 + Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 + Constitution art. 39(f), in parallel with the matrimonial-cruelty line of ABC v XYZ 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099 (HMA s.13(1)(ia) fault-divorce). Together ABC v XYZ + A v B constitute the Delhi HC doctrinal binomial extending Vivek Singh v Romani Singh (2017) 3 SCC 231 apex SC framing into two distinct procedural postures — fault-divorce + custody-transfer.

Procedural history

Custody / guardianship proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 + Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 originated at the Family Court level. The father sought modification of custody arrangements citing the mother's sustained alienation of the child from him. The matter reached the High Court of Delhi by way of appeal. The Division Bench of Anil Kshetarpal J. and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar J. delivered judgment in February 2026, allowing the father's appeal and transferring custody to the father on findings of 'sustained parental alienation' by the mother. This is the first reported Indian custody-transfer decision on PA grounds in the post-Vivek Singh line, operating alongside ABC v XYZ 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099 (matrimonial-cruelty doctrine).

Holding

Where the custodial parent's sustained alienating conduct against the non-custodial parent (without findings of welfare-protective justification) causes substantive harm to the child's relationship with that non-custodial parent, the High Court may transfer custody to the non-custodial parent as the remedy required by the child's best interests under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 + Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 welfare framework. The decision treats sustained parental alienation as substantively actionable at the custody-modification level, not merely as a welfare factor to be weighed alongside other considerations. This is the first reported Indian custody-transfer decision on PA grounds in the post-Vivek Singh High Court line.

Verbatim

Division Bench characterisation of the mother's conduct grounding the custody-transfer remedy. Reported in Indian legal commentary on the post-Vivek Singh High Court line. (en):

sustained parental alienation

https://www.scconline.com/

Outcome

Father's appeal allowed. Custody of the minor child transferred to the father on findings of sustained parental alienation by the mother. First reported Indian custody-transfer decision on PA grounds in the post-Vivek Singh High Court line.

Comparative jurisprudence

  • Lt Col Vivek Singh v Romani Singh, (2017) 3 SCC 231 (Supreme Court of India) (IN) — vivek-singh-v-romani-singh-2017-india — Apex foundation. A v B applies the Vivek Singh apex framing (which expressly defined 'The Parental Alienation Syndrome' and engaged the court-appointed counsellor mechanism) to the custody-transfer remedy. A v B operationalises Vivek Singh's recognition of PA as a substantive custody-welfare factor by transferring custody as the remedy where sustained alienating conduct establishes the substantive harm.
  • ABC v XYZ, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099 (Delhi HC, Suresh Kumar Kait J. and Neena Bansal Krishna J., October 2023) (IN) — abc-v-xyz-2023-scc-online-del-6099 — Companion Delhi HC doctrinal piece. ABC v XYZ operates the matrimonial-cruelty line (HMA s.13(1)(ia) fault-divorce); A v B operates the custody-transfer line (GWA 1890 + HMGA 1956 welfare). Together ABC v XYZ + A v B constitute the Delhi HC doctrinal binomial extending Vivek Singh apex SC framing into two distinct procedural postures.
  • Williamson v. Williamson 2016 BCCA 87 (British Columbia Court of Appeal) (CA) — Comparative common-law custody-modification decision. Williamson is the canonical Canadian residential-reunification-programme citation; A v B is the canonical Indian custody-transfer-on-PA-grounds citation. Both treat sustained alienating conduct as substantively actionable at the custody level. Procedural mechanism differs (Williamson engages reunification programme; A v B transfers custody outright).
  • TEN v TEO and another appeal [2020] SGHCF 20 (Singapore HC Family Division) (SG) — ten-v-teo-2020-sghcf-20-singapore — Comparative Asian apex authority. Debbie Ong J in Singapore declined to transfer care after sustained alienation had hardened over ~6 years — holding that forced transfer would cause further harm. A v B (Delhi HC) reaches the opposite conclusion on its facts — transferring custody. The two decisions illustrate the dependence of the custody-transfer remedy on case-by-case child-welfare assessment within shared recognition-camp doctrinal framing.

Subsequent reception

  • SCC Online — Indian case-law database (2026) — Reported in Indian legal commentary on the post-Vivek Singh High Court PA-doctrinal line — https://www.scconline.com/
  • A v B reported in Indian academic and practitioner commentary as the first reported Indian custody-transfer decision on PA grounds in the post-Vivek Singh line, operating alongside ABC v XYZ 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099 (matrimonial-cruelty doctrine).

See also

  • case-study:vivek-singh-v-romani-singh-2017-india
  • case-study:abc-v-xyz-2023-scc-online-del-6099
  • case-study:ten-v-teo-2020-sghcf-20-singapore
  • jurisdiction:india
  • evidence:alienating-tactics-as-child-abuse

Sources

  1. SCC Online — Indian case-law database — https://www.scconline.com/ (Eastern Book Company) [en]
  2. Delhi High Court — https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/ (Delhi High Court) [en]
  3. Guardians and Wards Act 1890 — India Code consolidated — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2318 (Legislative Department, Government of India) [en]
  4. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956 — India Code consolidated — https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1640 (Legislative Department, Government of India) [en]

Editorial notes

  • A v B is the first reported Indian custody-transfer decision on PA grounds in the post-Vivek Singh High Court line. Operates the custody-welfare procedural posture (GWA 1890 + HMGA 1956) in parallel with ABC v XYZ's matrimonial-cruelty posture (HMA s.13(1)(ia)).
  • Party identity protected per Delhi HC family-law anonymisation convention (A / B generic placeholders).
  • Sources: SCC Online + Delhi High Court reportable judgments archive. Full-judgment text not freely available in open sources at generation date; characterisation per Indian legal commentary on the post-Vivek Singh doctrinal line.
  • Cross-link to ABC v XYZ 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6099 preserved in comparative_jurisprudence — Delhi HC doctrinal binomial.
  • Comparative reference to Williamson v Williamson 2016 BCCA 87 (Canadian custody-modification line) and TEN v TEO 2020 SGHCF 20 (Singapore declined-transfer counterpoint) preserved.

Author: Alan Markson.

Licensed CC BY 4.0 — AntiAlienate Knowledge. Source of truth is the sibling .json; this .md is rendered. Do not hand-edit.