Safiya Malik

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi dismissed a man’s petition seeking restoration of custody of a minor girl, after the police removed the child from his care while probing allegations of illegal adoption and child trafficking. The Court declined to direct the authorities to return the child, noting that the girl was obtained through a process not recognised by law and outside the prescribed adoption framework. It also found that an emotional bond developed with the child cannot be a basis to validate or regularise an adoption arising from an unlawful procurement.

The writ petition was filed by an individual claiming to be the adoptive father of a minor girl child, seeking a declaration that the action of State authorities in detaining the child in a Child Protection Centre was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner asserted that the child had been taken into adoption through a private arrangement and had been in his care since infancy. He sought restoration of custody and a consequential direction to hand over the child for care and protection.

Also Read: ‘Are Eyewitnesses Supposed To Measure Injuries?’: Supreme Court Questions Bombay High Court Bail Grant In SC/ST Murder Case

It was contended that the child was taken away without prior notice and without following due process of law, and that a strong emotional bond had developed between the petitioner, his wife, and the child. Reliance was placed on photographs and ceremonies conducted after the child came into their care. The petitioner also relied upon an order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 142 of the Constitution in a different case to seek similar relief.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the child was procured through an illegal adoption involving a person allegedly engaged in child trafficking. It was submitted that a criminal case had been registered under provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and other penal laws, and that the adoption was not in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).

The Court observed that “the child has not been taken in adoption from her natural parents but has been procured through one Nakka Yadagiri for a consideration.” It recorded that “Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits sale and procurement of children for any purpose.”

The Court noted that “admittedly, the child is not adopted from the natural parents and one Nakka Yadagiri is the person involved in giving the child in adoption to the petitioner.” It further observed that “a crime has also been registered against him as well as the petitioner and his wife.”

The Court stated that “this is not a one incident where he is involved and therefore, it appears to be a clear case of child trafficking.” It recorded that “the case is under investigation.”

While acknowledging the care provided to the child, the Court observed that “it appears that the petitioner and his wife have taken good care of the child,” but categorically held that “the procedure adopted by them for taking a child in adoption cannot be appreciated or approved.”

On the statutory framework, the Court stated that “child trafficking is a serious issue in India and therefore, the Government of India has framed the guidelines known as CARA guidelines for adoption of abandoned and orphaned children.” It further recorded that “as adoption of the child by the petitioner and his wife is not legal and is not in accordance with CARA guidelines, the same cannot be approved by this Court.”

With respect to preferential consideration based on emotional bonding, the Court observed that “on the ground that a bond has already developed between the child and the petitioner herein and his wife, the respondents cannot be directed to refer the matter to CARA to be taken out of turn.” It cautioned that “that would amount to and would lead to a prescription for illegal adoptions.”

On the reliance placed on the Supreme Court decision, the Court observed that “the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar and Another is under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.” It further recorded that “the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the above decision shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.”

Also Read: Agricultural Income Exemption Extends To Tissue-Cultured Plant Sales: Telangana High Court

The Court directed that “this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.”

Case Title: Muthineni Venakanna v. State of Telangana & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. No. 20162 of 2025
Bench: Justice T. Madhavi Devi