Karnataka High Court Permits Adoption by Mother and Stepfather | Biological Father’s Silence Inferred as Consent, Authorities Directed to Complete Process
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad held that the adoption of a 16-year-old boy by his mother and stepfather could proceed by drawing an inference of the biological father’s consent. The Court recorded that the father, though earlier relinquishing custody and visitation rights in matrimonial proceedings, failed to take a definite stand when called upon during adoption. The mother had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority, but the State Adoption Resource Agency insisted on production of the father’s consent. The Court directed authorities to complete the adoption process treating such inference as valid.
The petitioners, a married couple, applied to the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) to adopt a 16-year-old boy, the son of the first petitioner from her earlier marriage. Their application was questioned when the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication dated 25 March 2025 requiring the consent of the biological father, with whom the first petitioner’s marriage had been dissolved in 2012. In those matrimonial proceedings, the father had permanently relinquished custody and visitation rights of the child, allowing the mother to be the sole guardian.
The petitioners contended that the insistence on the father’s fresh consent was unnecessary in light of the prior relinquishment, and that such insistence delayed the adoption process despite their compliance with other formalities. CARA, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the consent requirement of a biological parent cannot be diluted, as its absence could create legal complications. The amicus curiae submitted that in circumstances where the biological father had earlier given up all rights and refused to take a stand, the Court could infer consent to protect the interests of the minor. Counsel for the biological father submitted that his client would not take a definite stand on the adoption. The statutory context was governed by adoption procedures under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as regulated by CARA.
The Court recorded: “This Court has recorded submissions by Sri. Vikram Huilgol, the learned Senior Counsel who is called upon by this Court to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae, that the fifth respondent even now can consent for the proposed adoption and if he consents there would be quietus, and otherwise, it would be open to this Court to draw an inference on consent.”
It further noted: “Sri Arvind Kamath, the learned Additional Solicitor General who appears for the first respondent – CARA, supports the insistence on the consent of the biological father emphasizing the deleterious effect that there could be if there is any dilution in this requirement.”
The Bench observed: “The refusal to take a stand in the circumstances of the case, must justify an inference in favour of the minor being taken in adoption because the fifth respondent has not come forward to extend justifiable reasons to deny the benefit of adoption not just to the petitioner but also to the minor whose interest must be paramount.”
The Court stated: “If the inference is not drawn with the fifth respondent not taking a stand despite opportunity, the minor, who is keen to go in adoption with the petitioners with whom he is living, could lose the advantage of belonging to the family completely with all consequences that would be.”
The Court concluded: “Hence, this Court is of the opinion that there must not only be an inference of consent by the fifth respondent in favour of the adoption but there should also be a direction to the second and the fourth respondents to consider completion of the adoption process in the light of this inference with liberty to the petitioners to upload this order as proof of consent of the fifth respondent for adoption.”
It disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Sharanadeep, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Arvind Kamath, Additional Solicitor General assisted by Smt. Anupama Hegde, Central Government Counsel; Sri. Rahul Cariappa, Additional Government Advocate; Sri. Saravana S; Sri. Vikram Huilgol, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae
Case Title: XYZ v. Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:32957
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 15957 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Bench: Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad
