Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ.
Avula Surender And Others - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Telangana And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No.15319 of 2025
Decided On : 26-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri K.Laxmaiah, learned counsel resenting Sri Saidulu Easarapu
For the Respondent:Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Govt. Pleader representing learned Advocate General for R-1 to R-3.
Without valid legal adoption, custody by Child Welfare Committee is lawful; illegal detention claims denied.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 80, 81, 31(1), 35(3) - Writ Petition for custody of minor - The petitioners sought custody of an allegedly illegal adopted child though no legal adoption was established. The respondents contended the child was sold unlawfully and was under safe custody of Child Welfare Committee. No merit found in petition, as detention was lawful under the Act. (Paras 21, 19)
(B) Child Welfare - Legal sanctity of adoption - Petitioners could not establish legal adoption validating custody claims; court reaffirmed importance of lawful processes in child custody cases. The welfare of the child is of paramount importance.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, claiming to be adoptive parents, were detained by police indicating the adoption was illegal and that the biological parents had sold the child. An investigation followed, confirming that the adoption had no legal basis.
Findings of Court:
The court found no valid legal adoption and upheld the actions of the Child Welfare Committee as lawful and necessary for child protection.
Issues: The main issues involved the legality of the adoption process and whether the Child Welfare Committee acted beyond its authority in detaining the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without valid legal adoption, custody by the Child Welfare Committee cannot be deemed unlawful, underscoring the role of legal standards in adoption.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for child custody involving alleged illegal adoption. (Para 2 , 3 , 5) |
| 2. allegations of illegal sale and subsequent police intervention. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. confirmation of illegal adoption status and lawful custody by authorities. (Para 9 , 12 , 16) |
| 4. court's reasoning on custody legality without valid adoption. (Para 19 , 20) |
ORDER :
Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.
Heard Sri K.Laxmaiah, learned counsel representing Sri Saidulu Easarapu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed by the adoptive and biological parents of the alleged detenue Baby boy Ashrit seeking custody of the child from respondent Nos.2 and 3, with a consequential direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to produce the alleged detenue before this Court and handover custody of the alleged detenue boy to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and also provide an opportunity to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to legalize the adoption process.
3. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are the wife and husband were in search of child for adoption. Meanwhile, petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who are the biological parents of the alleged detenue, are blessed with three male children. Since, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are relatives to petitioner Nos.3 and 4, they requested petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who do not have financial capacity to look after the three children, in adoption of the alleged detenue. In this regard a notarized deed of adoption was also executed on 23-11-2023.
4. It is further averred that pursuant to the adoption, the alleged detenue was residing with the adopted parents i.e. petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and they also performed various ceremonies.
5. It is furtheraverred that on 20-02-2025, when petitioner Nos.1 and 2 went to Alampur Jogulamba Temple to perform Chandi Yagam on Baby’s name and while they were returning from Alampur at Boothpur village, police stopped them and took away the boy in their custody stating that their adoption was illegal. Thereafter, as per the directions of the Child Welfare Committee, the alleged detenue was shifted to Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA), Nalgonda for shelter on 01-03-2025.
6. It was further averred by the petitioners that the respondents without giving any notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard, detained the alleged detenue. As such, they approached this Court for indulgence for production of the alleged detenue.
7. Sri Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents filed counter-affidavit stating that the Child Help Line received an unknown call stating that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 allegedly sold their 18 months boy. Immediately, the Officials of the respondents rushed to Ramachandrapuram village and conducted enquiry. During enquiry, it is revealed that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 have sold their minor son i.e. the alleged detenue to petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
8. It was further contended that the Extension Officer of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Yandlapally Sector, Suryapet Mandal lodged a complaint on 27-02-2025 to the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural PS stating that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are residing in her Sector limits i.e. Ramachandrapuram Village, Suryapet Mandal and were blessed with three children, and about 6 months back, she noticed that the third son was not present with them and when questioned to the 3rd petitioner, nothing was revealed, thereby the Extension Officer suspected that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 might have sold their third son to some others, and as such, lodged complaint before the 2nd respondent.
9. During investigation, it was revealed that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the biological parents of the alleged detenue, and petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are issueless, have purchased the boy through accused Nos.5 to 10 in Cr.No.51/2025 under Section 80 , 81 of the Juvenile Justic
