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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 39591

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
MS AFREEN – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB REGISTRAR – Respondent
WP 31063 of 2024



Petitioner Advocates:MAHESH Y L ,Respondent Advocate:

The court held that the consent of a biological father, who is a rape accused, is not required for adoption, prioritizing the child's best interests and the mother's rights.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4-6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376, 506, 34 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 2(2), 2(42), 35, 38, 61, 80 - Adoption of child born out of rape - Consent of biological father not required for adoption when he is the accused - The court emphasized the importance of the best interests of the child and the rights of the mother in adoption proceedings. (Paras 2, 8, 20)

(B) Adoption Rights - The Supreme Court recognized the rights of minor victims to give up children for adoption without the biological father's consent, affirming that such consent is inconsequential in cases of rape. (Paras 12, 18)

(C) Principles of Juvenile Justice - The court reiterated that the welfare of the child is paramount and that procedural requirements should not hinder the adoption process when the biological parents are unable to provide a nurturing environment. (Paras 10.4, 20)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners seek to quash the rejection of their application for registering an adoption deed for a child born to a minor rape victim. The application was rejected on the grounds that the biological father, a rape accused, was not included as a party. (Paras 1-7)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the biological father's consent is unnecessary and that the adoption is in compliance with the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. (Paras 18-20)

Issues: Whether the consent of the biological father is required for adoption when he is the accused in a rape case. (Paras 2, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the consent of the biological father is inconsequential, emphasizing the statutory and moral obligation to ensure the child's welfare and dignity. (Paras 18-20)

Result: The petition is allowed; the endorsement rejecting the application is quashed, and the adoption deed is to be registered without the biological father's consent.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 11.11.2024 issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the online Application bearing No. PRP-11112024-6359973 for the registration of the adoption deed dated 11.11.2024. The petitioners seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their application for registering the Adoption Deed dated 11.11.2024.

2. Respondent No.1 has issued the impugned endorsement, stating that the application is incomplete as the biological father of the child to be adopted is not mentioned as an executing party. The primary issue raised in this petition is whether the consent of the biological father of a child born out of rape who is also the accused in the rape case is required, in addition to the consent already provided by the minor victim mother and her guardian, for the purpose of giving the child up for adoption.

3. Petitioner No.1 is a Muslim minor and the victim of rape, as well as the biological mother of the girl child, who was 51 days old at the time of filing this petition. Petitioner No.2 is the mother and legal guardian of Petitioner No.1. Petitioners No.3 and 4 are a Muslim married couple, and the prospective adoptive parents with no biological children, who have filed an affidavit affirming their educational qualifications, financial stability, and emotional commitment to provide for the overall growth and development of the child.

3.1 Respondent No.1 is the jurisdictional Sub- Registrar at Yelahanka, who issued the impugned endorsement. The biological father, who is the rape accused, is currently in judicial custody awaiting trial and has not been impleaded as a party in this writ petition.

4. It is undisputed that Petitioner No.1 is the minor victim in Crime No.0307/2024, registered on 03.08.2024 at the Devarajeevanahalli Police Station (later transferred to the Kadugondana Police Station under Crime No.379/2024, dated 13.08.2024). The case involves allegations of offences committed during the period between 01.11.2023 and 20.06.2024, punishable under Sections 4 -6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Sections 376 , 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860.

5. Petitioner No.1 gave birth to a baby girl on 30.09.2024 at Bowring and Curzon Hospital, Bangalore. Petitioners No.1 and 2 assert that they are in dire financial distress and are unable to provide basic necessities or ensure the overall development of the child. Additionally, Petitioner No.1 comes from an impoverished family consisting of three female members, with no male earning member. For these reasons, Petitioners No.1 and 2 are willing to give the child up for adoption.

6. Petitioners No.3 and 4, a married couple with no children, have expressed their willingness to adopt the child. Consequently, they have executed an Irrevocable Adoption Deed dated 11.11.2024 with Petitioners No.1 and 2.

7. However, Respondent No.1, through the impugned endorsement, rejected the application bearing No.PRP- 11112024-6359973, dated 11.11.2024, seeking registration of the Adoption Deed. The rejection was on the ground that the biological father of the child had not been included as a consenting party in the Adoption Deed. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shabnam Hashmi Vs. Union of India and Ors, (2014) 4 SCC 1, has extended adoption rights to muslims. The Court observed at paragraph no. (13), as follows:

“13. The JJ Act, 2000, as amended, is an enabling legislation that gives a prospective parent the option of adopting an eligible child by following the procedure prescribed by the Act, the Rules and the CARA Guidelines, as notified under the Act. The Act does not mandate any compulsive action by any prospective parent leaving such person with the liberty of accessing the provisions of the Act, if he so desires. Such

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