Merely Submitting Adoption Plea Wouldn't Confer Any Rights To Unilaterally Take Child's Custody Without Following Procedure: Madras HC

Merely Submitting Adoption Plea Wouldn't Confer Any Rights To Unilaterally Take Child's Custody Without Following Procedure: Madras HC

The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure.

A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc.

“Mere submission of an application seeking an adoption would not confer any right to take custody of a child unilaterally and declare the said child as an adopted daughter. Pertinently, the High Court cannot deliberate on these issues, since it involves the 'best interest of the child'. The assessment of the couple seeking adoption, their capacity, mind set, family setup, circumstances, all to be examined scrupulously by the committee constituted for the purpose of making such assessment. Therefore, the procedures as contemplated under the relevant statutes are to be scrupulously followed for the purpose of adoption of a child,” the court noted.

The bench was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by a couple seeking the custody of a 1 ½-year-old child. The couple informed the court that they had been married for 20 years and since they had not been blessed with a child, they submitted an application seeking adoption in the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), Ministry of Women and Child Development.

The couple submitted that when they were travelling from Tirunelveli to Erode on February 20, 2023, they found a new born female child wrapped in a cloth in the Toilet of the train. The couple then decided to take the child and has been in their custody since then.

While so, a special cell attached with the office of the Chief Minister's office received an information about child racketing and during inquiry found the baby's case. The Child Welfare Committee conducted an enquiry on August 19, 2024. During enquiry, the couple submitted the medical records to show that the child was being taken care of. However, finding that the custody of the child was illegal, the committee took the child away from the couple.

Senior Advocate John Sathya, appearing for the couple informed the court that the couple was emotionally attached to the child and providing all necessary care, medical treatment and other facilities. He relied on an earlier order of the court in which, when the parentage of the child could not be found, the court declared the foster parents as guardians and granted them custody of the child.

The court, however, noted that the above order was peculiar to the facts of the case and could not be followed as a precedent. With respect to the maintainability, the court noted that the child was not under illegal detention and was within the custody of the State.

The court added that though the couple were emotionally attached and providing all facilities, it would not provide entitlement to claim the child as an adopted one as the custody was not legal.

When the State informed that it was in the process of searching the biological parents of the child, the court directed the state to complete the exercise, and if the parents are not found, a declaration be made under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court added that only after such declaration, the authorities could consider giving the child up for adoption to eligible parents.

The court further observed that it would be inappropriate for the court to declare the couple as the foster parents or pave the way for direct adoption, without undergoing the procedures contemplated under the Statutes.

Thus, noting that the habeas corpus petition in per se not maintainable, the court dismissed the plea.

Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. John Sathiyan Senior Counsel for Mr. S. Washimaraja

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15

Case No: H.C.P.No.2887 of 2024