Biological Father's Refusal To Take Stand Amounts To Inferred Consent For Adoption: Karnataka High Court - 2025-09-22

Karnataka HC Paves Way for Adoption, Rules Father's Neutrality Implies Consent

Bengaluru: In a significant ruling championing the paramount interest of a minor, the Karnataka High Court has held that a biological father's refusal to take a definite stand on his child's adoption can be interpreted as inferred consent. Justice B M Shyam Prasad directed the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to proceed with the adoption process, allowing the petitioners to upload the court's order as proof of the father's consent.

Case Background

The case was brought by a mother and her current husband (the petitioners) who sought to formalize the adoption of the mother’s 16-year-old son from her previous marriage. The adoption process, managed through CARA, hit a roadblock when the authorities insisted on obtaining the consent of the biological father (the fifth respondent).

The petitioners highlighted that the biological parents had divorced by mutual consent in 2012. As part of their settlement, the father had explicitly relinquished all future claims to custody or even visitation rights, agreeing that the mother would be the sole guardian with permanent care and custody of the child. Despite this, when approached for the adoption, the biological father refused to provide a clear 'yes' or 'no', creating a legal impasse.

Arguments in Court

The court appointed Senior Counsel Sri Vikram Huilgol as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. Both the Amicus Curiae and Sri Arvind Kamath, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for CARA, acknowledged the critical importance of a biological parent's consent in adoption proceedings to prevent deleterious effects.

However, they argued that the unique circumstances of this case warranted a different approach. They submitted that given the father had completely given up his parental rights, including visitation, his subsequent refusal to take a stand should lead the court to draw an inference in favour of consent.

The counsel for the biological father, Sri S. Saravana S, was categorical that his client would not take a definite stand on the adoption. This refusal, as emphasized by the Amicus and the ASG, was deemed unjustified as it denied the minor the benefit of legally belonging to the family he lives with, without providing any valid reason.

The Court's Decisive Reasoning

Justice B M Shyam Prasad found "considerable force" in the submissions, prioritizing the child's welfare above all. The court noted that the minor was keen on being adopted by his mother and stepfather, with whom he resides.

In a pivotal observation, the Court stated:

"...the refusal to take a stand in the circumstances of the case, must justify an inference in favour of the minor being taken in adoption because the fifth respondent has not come forward to extend justifiable reasons to deny the benefit of adoption not just to the petitioner but also to the minor whose interest must be paramount."

The judgment underscored the potential harm to the child if the adoption were to be stalled due to the father's ambiguity. The court warned that if an inference of consent was not drawn, "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."

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a clear directive. It not only inferred the consent of the biological father but also ordered the concerned authorities to complete the adoption process based on this inference.

The court granted liberty to the petitioners to upload its order as a substitute for the father's formal consent, effectively resolving the procedural deadlock. This judgment sets a crucial precedent, establishing that a biological parent who has previously relinquished all parental rights cannot indefinitely stall an adoption beneficial to the child by simply remaining neutral or refusing to engage.