The Madras High Court has ruled that grandparents can legally execute an adoption if the biological mother consents, affirming that such adoptions remain valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, despite bureaucratic objections.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHENNAI: In a ruling reinforcing the sanctity of adoptions under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAM Act), the Madras High Court has held that an adoption deed executed by a child’s grandparents remains legally valid if the biological mother has consented to the adoption.
The ruling came while hearing a petition filed by a Puducherry-based couple, whose request to record themselves as the parents of their adopted daughter in her birth certificate had been rejected by the local Registrar of Births and Deaths.
Court’s Ruling
A Bench led by Justice M. Dhandapani clarified that the biological mother’s consent is the determining factor in the validity of such an adoption. The Court observed:
“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.”
This clarification reaffirms that procedural formalities cannot override the intent and lawful consent behind an adoption executed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, a married couple married in 2006, did not have any children and decided to adopt. They adopted a baby girl born on April 26, 2022, after the biological mother, aged 18, voluntarily gave her up for adoption due to financial hardship.
The adoption was performed following Hindu rites and rituals, including Datta Homam, and was formalized through a registered adoption deed dated September 7, 2022, before the Sub Registrar, Puducherry.
However, when the adoptive parents sought to update the child’s birth certificate to reflect their names and the child’s new name, the Registrar refused, claiming that only the District Magistrate could certify adoptions under the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
The couple, represented by Advocate D. Ravichander, challenged the order, asserting that their adoption was valid under the HAM Act and that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act expressly excluded its applicability to adoptions made under the HAM Act.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Adoption Regulations, 2022. It concluded that:
- The HAM Act is a self-contained code governing adoptions among Hindus.
- The Juvenile Justice Act applies only to children who are orphaned, abandoned, surrendered, or in conflict with the law, not to adoptions like the one in this case.
- Regulations 40 and 69 of the Adoption Regulations cannot override Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which clearly states that nothing in the Act applies to adoptions made under the HAM Act.
Justice Dhandapani further emphasized that administrative authorities cannot nullify a civil court’s decree validating an adoption, calling the Registrar’s rejection “legally unsustainable.”
The Court remarked that adoption laws are meant to protect children’s welfare, not hinder it:
“These legislations are aimed at protecting the interests of the adopted child and not to sabotage its interests… this is one such classic case of the authorities trying to block the interests of the child.”
The Bench clarified that insisting on a District Magistrate’s order was not legally required when a valid adoption had already been executed and recognized under the HAM Act.
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar’s order and directed the issuance of a corrected birth certificate listing the adoptive parents’ names within four weeks.
Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed in favor of the adoptive parents.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate D. Ravichander
Respondents: V. Vasanthkumar, Additional Government Pleader (P)
Case Title:
A. Kannan v. Union Territory of Puducherry & Others
W.P. NO.39430 OF 2025
READ ORDER