SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
A.Kannan - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Territory of Puducherry Rep. By its Chief Secretary Secretariat, Puducherry -  Respondents
W.P. NO.39430 OF 2025
Decided On : 25-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D.Ravichander
For the Respondents: Mr. V.Vasanthkumar, AGP (P)

The issuance of a birth certificate for an adopted child under Hindu law cannot be denied based on juvenile justice regulations if the adoption complies with applicable personal law, emphasizing the child's welfare.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 9 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 56(3) - Writ petition for certiorarified mandamus - The petitioner sought to quash the order rejecting the issuance of a birth certificate for the adopted child, contending that adoption was valid under Hindu law. The court emphasized that the HAM Act governs personal law adoptions, excluding the application of the Juvenile Justice Act where the child is not an orphan or abandoned. The impugned order was therefore found to be erroneous and set aside. (Paras 1, 17, 30-32, 37)

(B) Jurisdiction and Authority - The court underscored that administrative orders cannot nullify decrees of civil courts and must uphold the child’s welfare, highlighting the benevolent intent behind adoption laws.

Table of Content
1. petition for birth certificate after adoption (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments about adoption legality and governing laws (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 12 , 13)
3. court's interpretation on law applicability and child welfare (Para 15 , 16 , 18 , 20 , 29)
4. applicability of ham act vs. juvenile justice act (Para 30 , 31)
5. final verdict directing issuance of birth certificate (Para 36 , 37)

ORDER :

Aggrieved by the impugned order in and by which the 3rd respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner to record his name and that of his wife K.Sheela as the father and mother of the child Saatvika, who was taken on adoption from Vijayalakshmi, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he married one K.Sheela on 27.1.2006 as per Hindu Rights and Customs and they have been living as husband and wife ever since. However, out of the matrimonial wedlock, as they were not blessed with a child, they decided to adopt a child and upon coming to know that one Vijayalakshmi had delivered a child on 26.4.2022 at Cluny Hospital, Puducherry and that the said Vijayalakshmi was in absolute penury and expressed her inability to take care of the child, the petitioner, along with his wife, K.Sheela, expressed his desire and willingness adopt the said child from the said Vijayalakshmi, to which the said Vijayalakshmi consented to give the child on adoption.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Vijayalakshmi was only 18 years old and, therefore, the grandparents of the child, viz., P.Sakarapani and S.Sudha also came forward to give the child in adoption as per Hindu Rites and Customs and, accordingly, after performing “Datta Homam”, which was done by one Dhandapani Sharma, a Prohidar of Shri Selva Vinayagar Temple, Danakodi Nagar, Dharmapuri at Puducherry on 5.5.2022, the child was given in adoption by Vijayalakshmi to the petitioner and his wife K.Sheela.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the biological mother along with her parents had given the child in adoption to the petitioner and his wife and pursuant to the performance of the Hindu Rites and Customs, the petitioner and his wife took the child in adoption and the said act of adoption was also validated by means of a registered Adoption Deed dated 7.9.2022 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry in Doc. No.1595/2022, whereinafter naming ceremony of the child was performed by the petitioner and his wife in the presence of their relatives on 2.10.2022 and the child was christened as ‘K.S.Saatvika’ and she became the adopted the child of the petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he owns immovable property to the extent of ¾ grounds and also built a residential house on the said land and, therefore, imposed upon the petitioner to execute a Will or Deed in favour apprehending that the said property will not go to his share. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.189 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, for declaration that the adopted child, K.S.Saatvika is the lawfully adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife, K.Sheela and also sought for an injunction restraining his brother in any manner disputing the status of their adopted daughter so that after the lifetime of the petitioner and his wife, the property will devolve on the adopted daughter and that there would be no question of her status as our daughter. The suit was contested by the brother of the petitioner and also the biological mother and grand-parents of the adopted daughter of the petitioner and the suit, after contest, was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 and no appeal has been filed against the said decree and the same has attained finality and, therefore, there is no iota of doubt that the child is the adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife K.Sheela.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the child, which has s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top