ChatGPT Allegations Surface in Matrimonial Dispute as Gujarat High Court Dismisses Father’s Custody Plea

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a father's petition asking it to order that his two-year-old daughter be brought before the Court and placed in his care. The Court said that the child living with her mother was not automatically illegal just because the father wanted her returned. It explained that the parents disagreed about important facts, which needed to be examined carefully by the court with the power to decide the matter.

A two-judge bench made up of Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Justice R. T. Vachhani gave its decision on October 8, 2026. The father had filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Background

The father told the High Court that his wife had taken their daughter away without his permission in August 2026 and later refused to let him see the child. He said the daughter had previously lived in his care. He asked the Court to have the child brought before it and to transfer custody to him.

The mother disagreed with his claims. In her reply to a legal notice, she said their marriage had faced growing problems over time. She alleged that her husband had started using ChatGPT excessively in January 2025 and had developed stories or ideas that affected his behaviour and their relationship.

She also claimed that he had developed romantic feelings for a dentist who did not share those feelings and had acted aggressively during a disagreement at home. These were allegations recorded in the judgment, not facts that the High Court had independently proved.

The father had also gone to the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Surat. He asked the magistrate to issue directions about the offences he alleged and to have the child brought before the court. Those proceedings were still pending when the High Court considered his petition.

The judges stressed that a child's welfare must come before either parent's legal claim. They considered Supreme Court decisions, including Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma and Tejaswini Goud v. Shekhar Jagdishprasad Tiwari, which deal with petitions asking courts to order the release or return of a child in custody disputes.

The Court referred to the principle that child custody disputes usually need to be heard by a court that can examine the evidence and decide what is best for the child.

The judgment stated:

“A detailed enquiry is required” when the facts about custody and the child's welfare are disputed and need to be examined.

The judges found that the daughter was living with her mother and that the evidence presented to them did not show that her custody was illegal. They concluded that the parents' competing claims required a full examination of the evidence.

The High Court decided not to use its special powers to hear the matter and rejected the petition at the admission stage, meaning it did not proceed to a full hearing. It said both parents remained free to seek other legal remedies.

The judges made clear:

“We have not examined or expressed any opinion” on either parent's claims about permanent or temporary custody of the child.

The Court directed that if the parents later approached a court with the authority to decide the dispute, that court must decide the case according to the law and must not be influenced by the observations made in this judgment.