Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 129

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.
Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 16232 of 2025
Decided On : 30-03-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Yatin Mahesh Malvankar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Y. R. Mishra a/w Mr. D.A. Dube, Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar and Mr.Sachidanand T. Singh, Advocate

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.Anil V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Yatin Mahesh Malvankar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Y. R. Mishra a/w Mr. D.A. Dube, Mr.Upendra Lokegaonkar and Mr.Sachidanand T. Singh, Advocate

Post-2022 HAMA relative adoption by parents with foreign citizenship treated as expatriate: District Magistrate verifies under Reg 69, Authority issues NOC under Reg 70 without receiving country prior permission per Hague Articles 5/17.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Adoption under HAMA - Inter-country relative adoption by couple where one parent foreign citizen post introduction of Adoption Regulations 2022 - Child adopted from close relative via registered deed - Held, adoption valid under HAMA; not standard inter-country adoption but expatriate adoption per receiving country view - Procedure under Reg 69 Adoption Regulations 2022 applicable in peculiar facts: parties to present deed to Sub-Registrar (already done); District Magistrate to conduct inquiry within 30 days verifying HAMA compliance and issue verification certificate - On receipt, Authority to issue No Objection Certificate under Reg 70(1) intimating immigration authorities of India and receiving country within 15 days, without needing prior permission under Articles 5 or 17 of Hague Convention as not prospective inter-country case - Reg 67 inapplicable (pre-2021 deeds); Reg 68 not enforced retrospectively in peculiar circumstances to avoid reversing completed relative adoption. (Paras 33-42)

(B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 56(3), 60 - Adoption Regulations 2022 - Regs 67, 68, 69, 70 - Hague Convention Articles 5, 17, 23, 37 - HAMA adoptions independent except for inter-country relocation facilitation - No Objection Certificate issuance mandatory on District Magistrate verification for relative adoptions without receiving country prior NOC if treated as expatriate/domestic by receiving side - Aligns with precedents directing NOC post-DM order sans foreign prior approval. (Paras 14, 31-32, 36-39)

Facts of the case:
Childless married couple (both professed Hindus) adopted 45-day-old girl from close relative's unplanned third child via joint registered adoption deed under HAMA performed with rites; adoptive father foreign citizen at adoption time, mother later naturalized; child holds passport with adoptive parents' details; sought No Objection Certificate from Authority for child relocation abroad after prior court attempts failed; Authority insisted full inter-country procedure including receiving country prior permission; District Child Protection Officer recommended adoption as genuine relative case.

Findings of Court:
Adoption legally complete under HAMA; peculiar relative/expatriate facts warrant navigation via Regs 69-70 sans full Reg 68 process or Hague Articles 5/17 prior permissions; directs District Magistrate inquiry/verification within 30 days, Authority to issue NOC within 15 days post-receipt.

Issues: Applicability of Adoption Regulations 2022 Chapter VIII to post-2021 HAMA relative adoption by mixed-citizen parents; whether full inter-country/Hague procedure mandatory including receiving country prior permission under Regs 67-70 or simplified DM verification/NOC suffices for expatriate classification; reversal feasibility of completed adoption.

Ratio Decidendi: In relative HAMA adoptions post-2022 regs where receiving country views as expatriate (outside regulated inter-country), Reg 69 DM verification followed by Authority NOC under Reg 70 without prior foreign permission upholds child welfare; rigid prior approval renders 'necessary' in Reg 70(1) otiose; prioritizes completed adoption's irreversibility and family unity over procedural technicalities.

Result: Writ petition disposed directing compliance with Regs 69-70 for verification and NOC issuance; Rule discharged.

Table of Content
1. valid hama relative adoption executed and registered timely. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. expatriate adoption stance by australian and cara authorities. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. chapter viii regulates post-2021 hama inter-country relocations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
4. precedents direct cara noc without foreign prior permission. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. distinguish cases; peculiar facts avoid strict reg 68. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
6. apply reg 69; dm verify, cara issue noc promptly. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

“ADOPTING ONE CHILD WILL NOT CHANGE THE WORLD:

BUT FOR THAT CHILD, THE WORLD WILL CHANGE”

[Opening sentence from PKH v. Central Adoption Resource authority , 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3918]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are a married couple. Both are about 44 years of age. Petitioner No. 2, the wife, has sworn the verification in support of the Petition. Petitioner No. 3 is a minor girl child who was adopted by the couple when she was 45 days old under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘HAMA’).

3. For the sake of brevity, Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2, and Petitioner No. 3 are hereinafter referred to as the adoptive father, the adoptive mother, and the adopted daughter, respectively.

4. The couple got married on 01.03.2017 at Navi Mumbai Sports Association, Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Both were Indians at the time of their marriage. Their marriage certificate is dated 03.03.2017, registered under the Maharashtra Regulation of Marriage Bureaus and Registration of Marriages Act, 1998.

5. The adoptive father became an Australian citizen with effect from 27.02.2023. The couple was childless. Both professed the Hindu religion and were governed by HAMA. Being childless, the adoptive couple decided to adopt the 3^rd child of a close relative, namely, Sudhir Yashvant Shekokar and Yashoda Sudhir Shekokar. Both have a son, Prathmesh, who was 16 years of age in April 2023, and a daughter, Nirvika, who was 11 years of age at the said time. The said couple gave birth to their 3^rd child on 28.02.2023, who is Petitioner No. 3 before us. We are informed that third pregnancy of this couple was ‘unplanned’.

6. On 21.04.2023, a Joint Adoption Deed was entered into by the adoptive couple and the biological parents of the adopted daughter. The Adoption Deed was registered with the Joint Sub-Registrar, Thane, District Thane, on the same day. The adoption ceremony was conducted in accordance with Hindu religious rites in the presence of close relatives, families, and friends of the biological parents and the adoptive parents. The Hindu priest has also signed the English as well as the Marathi adoption ceremony documents before the Joint Sub-Registrar, Thane. The change of name of the adopted daughter was also carried out. All these documents are placed on record from page Nos. 41 to 58. The passport of the adopted daughter, carries the name and surname of the adoptive father, as her middle name and surname. The details about the adoptive mother, are also found in the said passport.

7. The adoptive mother subsequently became an Australian citizen. Due to the adoption, the child is supposed to accompany the parents to Australia. The adoptive father entered into correspondence with the Australian Authorities at ‘Adoption Victoria’, in order to obtain an Australian adoption Visa. The adoptive father was informed that for such a Visa, the Indian Central Authority must send them a request directly via email. However, much time was consumed in such correspondence, which did not lead to any result for the Petitioners. The ‘Duty Worker, Adoption Victoria, Adoption Services, Department of Justice and Community Safety’, advised the adoptive father that because the said office could not initiate contact with the Over

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Bom) 129

Post-2022 HAMA relative adoption by parents with foreign citizenship treated as expatriate: District Magistrate verifies under Reg 69, Authority issues NOC under Reg 70 without receiving country prior permission per Hague Articles 5/17.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar vs Union of India - 2026 Supreme(Bom) 129

Jasleeniqbal Sidhu & Ors. v. Union of India& Ors.

U. Ajay Kumar, S/o. Chandrashekar Udnur VS Union of India, Represented by its Member Secretary and Chief Executive Officer Central Adoption Resource Authority Ministry of Women and Children Development - 2024 Supreme(Kar) 4

R.K. vs Central Adoption Resource Authority

AKSHAY PITAMBER SARVAKARV/sCENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 14374

Ravi Kumar C. VS Central Adoption Resource Authority

Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Agency - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 1020

Richa Gupta VS Union of India - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2826

JS VS Central Adoption Resource Authority - 2021 Supreme(Del) 435

JS vs Central Adoption Resource Authority