Grandparents Executing Adoption Deed On Behalf Of Unmarried Daughter Is Valid If Done With Her Consent: Madras High Court

“The mere fact that the grandparents of the child had executed the adoption deed alone cannot make the adoption deed invalid so long as the adoption deed was executed with the concurrence of the mother of the child, who is none other than the daughter of the grandparents of the child,” the court said.

Justice Dhandapani highlighted that the concept of adoption is to facilitate the permanent care and protection of the child. The court added that so long as the interests of the child are met, the authorities should not focus on the intricacies of the process, hampering the welfare of the child.

“Therefore, the authorities at the helm of affairs are to see that the interests of the child are met and so long as the same are met, the intricacies in the process should be best oiled to the benefit of the child so that the adoption process is free and does not suffer blockage due to administrative lacunae as such delay would have a hampering effect on the welfare of the child,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Kannan against the decision of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry, refusing to issue a birth certificate for his adopted child with his name. Kannan submitted that he married his wife in 2006, and since they were not blessed with a child, they decided to adopt a child. At that time, the couple got to know that a girl had delivered a child on April 26, 2022, in Puducherry and was unable to take care of the child. When the couple expressed their willingness to adopt, the girl agreed.

Kannan submitted that since the girl was 18 years old at the time of childbirth, the grandparents of the child had come forward to give the child in adoption, and a “Datta Homam” was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs, giving the child in adoption to Kannan and his wife. It was also submitted that he had also filed a civil suit, wherein it was declared that the child was his adopted daughter and that his property would devolve on the daughter.

It was submitted that when Kannan approached the Sub Registrar to issue a birth certificate for his daughter, incorporating his name and his wife's name as adoptive parents, the application was rejected. The present petition was filed against the refusal.

Kannan submitted that the application was rejected only on the ground that the adoption order has not been issued by the District magistrate as per the Juvenile Justice Act. He argued that, as per the Act, a child is one in conflict with the law, which was not the case in the present plea. It was also submitted that provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would not be applicable to the present case since the parties were following the Hindu Rites and customs.

The Additional Government Pleader submitted that since the biological mother of the child was 18 at the time of birth, it was clear that she was a minor at the time of conception and thus the provisions of POCSO would be attracted. It was also argued that the child could be given in adoption only by the father, mother or guardian but in the present case, the child was given in adoption by the grandparents which would raise suspicion. It was further argued that as per Regulation 40 of the Adoption Regulations, the birth certificate can be issued based on adoption order issued by the District Magistrate and since it was not obtained in the present case, it was rightly rejected by the authority.

The court agreed with the petitioner that adoption in the present case would not be governed by the Juvenile Justice Act as it was not a case of child in conflict with law. The court also relied on a recent decision of the High Court and held that the Juvenile Justice Act did not apply to adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

With respect to age of mother being less than 18 at the time of conception, the court noted that the rigors of POCSO Act would be attracted only against the person who had allegedly committed offence against the biological mother and would not, in any way, affect the child who was being given in adoption.

Thus, the court concluded that the insistence of adoption order passed by the District magistrate was wholly flawed since the adoption in the present case was guided by Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and not by the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Board. The court eventually set aside the order of the Sub registrar and directed him to issue a fresh birth certificate incorporating the name of the child and the name of the petitioner and his wife.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. D. Ravichander

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V.Vasanthkumar, AGP (P)

Case Title: A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383

Case No: W.P. NO.39430 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment