## Facts

- The parties, devout Hindus, entered an arranged marriage in India and later moved to the United States.
- Their daughter was born in 1998; the parties separated about six months later.
- The Probate and Family Court found the marriage troubled and credited evidence of the husband’s controlling behavior and physical and mental abuse of the wife.
- The parents agreed their daughter would be raised in the Hindu faith but disagreed about performing Chudakarana, a ritual involving shaving the child’s head and related religious observances typically done in early childhood.
- The husband sought to perform the ritual, asserting it was religiously important and protected by constitutional free-exercise rights.
- The wife opposed the ritual, disputing its necessity within her family’s Hindu practice and arguing the husband’s insistence reflected control.
- In the divorce judgment, the Probate Court awarded joint legal custody, set the child’s primary residence with the mother, granted the father liberal visitation, and ordered that Chudakarana not be performed unless both parents agreed in writing or until the child was old enough to decide.

## Issues

1. Whether the order delaying/prohibiting Chudakarana absent mutual parental consent or the child’s later choice violated the father’s free-exercise and parental rights under the Federal and Massachusetts Constitutions.
2. Whether the Probate Court abused its discretion in designating the mother’s home as the child’s primary residence while awarding joint legal custody and liberal visitation.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court of Massachusetts affirmed the divorce judgment.
- The court held the Chudakarana order was constitutionally permissible because it was limited to a single, physically intrusive ritual and preserved two avenues for performance (mutual written consent or the child’s later decision).
- The court held the Probate Court did not abuse its discretion in the custody and parenting-time orders under the best-interests standard.

## Legal Principles

- Parents have a fundamental interest in directing a child’s religious upbringing, but that interest is subject to limitation when a child’s welfare is implicated in domestic-relations proceedings.
- In resolving parental disputes over religious practices, a court should exercise restraint and avoid rulings that prefer one parent’s religious view over the other’s.
- A narrowly framed order that postpones a contested, bodily intrusive religious practice—while otherwise permitting religious upbringing and allowing later mutual consent or the child’s own choice—may satisfy constitutional limits.
- Custody determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion and turn on the child’s best interests, including stability and safety.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a custody judgment placing the child’s primary residence with the mother and sustained a limited order deferring a disputed Hindu ritual unless both parents agreed or the child later chose, finding the approach consistent with constitutional protections and the child’s welfare.


Sagar v. Sagar, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 71 (2003)