Karnataka High Court Paves Way For Minor's Adoption By Mother And Stepfather, Infers Biological Father's Silence As Consent

The Karnataka High Court recently drew an inference of the biological father's consent for the adoption of his minor son, after the father did not take a definite stand on whether his former wife can adopt the minor along with her now husband. 

The mother (first petitioner) had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority [CARA] for adoption of the minor. However, the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication calling upon her to provide consent of the biological father with whom her marriage had been dissolved. 

The family court while granting divorce by mutual consent to the couple (mother and father of minor) had recorded in its order that the father has no objection for the mother to have permanent care and custody of their minor son and to be the sole guardian to him.

The family court order had recorded that the "...father hereby gives up his right to claim any visitation/custody rights to visit their minor son in future". 

Following which the mother remarried the second petitioner and the minor is now aged 16 years. The mother and the second petitioner completed all formalities for taking the minor in adoption but they had to ensure that the biological father's (fifth respondent) consent is obtained.

During the hearing the counsel for the biological father, categorically stated that the biological father "would not like to take a definite stand" on whether the mother must take the minor in adoption. 

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol appointed as Amicus Curiae and Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath appearing for CARA informed the court that refusal to take a stand in the circumstances of the case, must justify an inference in favour of the minor being taken in adoption.

They said that this was so because the biological father had not come forward to extend justifiable reasons to deny the benefit of adoption not just to the petitioner mother but also to the minor whose interest must be paramount.

Following which Justice B M Shyam Prasad said,

“This Court finds considerable force in these submissions and that the circumstances justify an inference, and this Court is also of the view that if the inference is not drawn with the fifth respondent (biological father) not taking a stand despite opportunity, the minor, who is keen to go in adoption with the petitioners with whom he is living, could lose the advantage of belonging to the family completely with all consequences that would be.”

Then it held “This Court is of the opinion that there must not only be an inference of consent by the fifth respondent in favour of the adoption but there should also be a direction to the second and the fourth respondents (State Adoption Resource Agency and District Child Protection Unit) to consider completion of the adoption process in the light of this inference with liberty to the petitioners to upload this order as proof of consent of the fifth respondent for adoption.”

Case Title: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15957 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314

Appearance: Advocate Sharandeep for Petitioners.

Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath a/w CGC Anupala Hegde for R1.

AGA Rahul Cariappa FOR R2 TO R4.

Advocate Saravana S FOR R5.

Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol.

Click Here To Read/Download Order