Telangana High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea | Custody Of Child With Child Welfare Committee Not Illegal Detention | Invalid Adoption Deed Cannot Confer Rights
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Telengana, Division Bench of Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya and Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar dismissed a writ petition seeking custody of a minor child. The Court held that there was no valid adoption in accordance with law and that the child was under the safe custody of the Child Welfare Committee and the Specialised Adoption Agency. The Court concluded that such custody could not be considered illegal detention. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with interim orders vacated and connected applications disposed of.
The writ petition was filed by the adoptive and biological parents of a minor child. The petitioners sought custody of the child from the respondents with a consequential direction to produce the alleged detenue before the Court and to hand over custody of the child to the adoptive parents. The petitioners also sought an opportunity to legalize the adoption process.
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, a married couple, were issueless and in search of a child for adoption. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4, who were the biological parents of the child, already had three male children. Due to financial incapacity to look after all three children, and being relatives of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, they agreed to give their youngest son in adoption. A notarized deed of adoption was executed on 23 November 2023. Thereafter, the child resided with Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, and various ceremonies were performed by them in connection with the adoption.
On 20 February 2025, Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 went to Alampur Jogulamba Temple to perform a Chandi Yagam in the child’s name. On their return journey, at Boothpur village, the police stopped them and took the boy into custody, alleging that the adoption was illegal. Pursuant to directions of the Child Welfare Committee, the child was shifted to the Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA), Nalgonda on 1 March 2025.
The petitioners alleged that the respondents, without issuing notice or providing them an opportunity of being heard, detained the child. Aggrieved, they approached the Court seeking production and custody of the minor.
On behalf of the respondents, a counter affidavit was filed by the Special Government Pleader. It was stated that the Child Helpline received an anonymous call alleging that Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had sold their 18-month-old son. Officials immediately conducted an enquiry in Ramachandrapuram village, where it was revealed that Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had indeed sold their minor son to Petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
The Extension Officer of the Integrated Child Development Services, Yandlapally Sector, Suryapet Mandal lodged a complaint on 27 February 2025 to the Station House Officer, Suryapet Rural Police Station. She stated that Petitioner Nos.3 and 4, residents of Ramachandrapuram village, were blessed with three children, but about six months earlier she noticed the absence of their third child. Upon enquiry, no satisfactory explanation was provided. She suspected that the child had been sold and lodged a formal complaint.
During investigation, it was found that Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were the biological parents of the minor and that Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had purchased the boy through accused Nos.5 to 10 under Crime No.51/2025 registered under Sections 80 and 81 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. These accused acted as mediators for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, of which Rs.2,00,000/- was given to the biological parents and Rs.3,00,000/- shared among the mediators.
On 28 February 2025, the police called the petitioners for enquiry along with the child. Investigation revealed that no legal adoption had taken place and that the child had been illegally sold. Accordingly, notice was issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryapet, sent the child under police escort in terms of Section 31(1) of the Act. As it was late night, the 2nd respondent orally instructed the 3rd respondent and the Centre Administrator of Sakhi Centre, Suryapet to admit the child for care and protection. The child was admitted at Sakhi Centre at about 10.02 p.m. on 28 February 2025.
The respondents stated that the child was later placed in the safe custody of the Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA)/Shishugruha, Nalgonda, where the staff were taking care of the child. It was submitted that the child was hale and healthy and was receiving due care and affection.
The petitioners relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dasari Anil Kumar and another v. Child Welfare Project Director and others (2025 SCC Online SC 1689). They contended that the Apex Court had directed handing over custody of children to adoptive parents. However, the present case was distinguished on the ground that the adoption in Dasari Anil Kumar was under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, whereas in the present case there was no legal adoption.
The petitioners also relied on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in W.P.No.13338 of 2024 dated 16 May 2024, where custody was returned to a parent unless declared unfit by the Committee. In the present case, however, the petitioners were unable to establish legal adoption, and their prayer itself sought regularization of the adoption process.
On the other hand, the respondents relied on a Division Bench judgment dated 12 June 2025 in W.P.No.15079 of 2025, where the Court held that petitioners cannot claim illegal detention where a child is in the safe custody of the Child Welfare Committee under the statutory framework of the Act.
The counter affidavit revealed that the Child Welfare Committee had duly examined the case and authorized placement of the child in the Specialised Adoption Agency. Reports submitted at the time of production of the child indicated illegal adoption. The 2nd respondent sent the child through Form-18 under the relevant Rules for placement before the Specialised Adoption Agency on 3 March 2025. Crime No.51/2025 was registered against the petitioners under Sections 80 and 81 of the Act.
The Court examined the counter affidavit, the findings of the Child Welfare Committee, and the statutory framework. It recorded: “Once, the Child Welfare Committee, which is a quasi-judicial authority constituted under the Act is engaged for addressing the needs of the children who require care and protection within a District, the said Committee is responsible to take care of protection, treatment, development and rehabilitation of such children including handling cases of abandoned, lost or orphaned children and processing them for adoption.”
The Court further stated: “Admittedly, there is no valid legal adoption and when there is no valid legal adoption, the custody of the Child Welfare Committee cannot be termed as illegal detention.”
The Bench observed that the petitioners sought regularization of adoption, which itself indicated that the adoption lacked legal sanctity. The Court noted that the placement of the child in the Specialised Adoption Agency was in accordance with law and the directions of the Child Welfare Committee.
It recorded: “Therefore, under the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for the ingredients attracting the provisions of Habeas Corpus warranting interference by this Court.”
The Court concluded its order by dismissing the writ petition. It stated: “In view of the reasons set out above, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed.” Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated and all connected applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri K.Laxmaiah, Sri Saidulu Easarapu
For the Respondents: Sri Swaroop Oorilla, Special Government Pleader
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Case Number: Writ Petition No.15319 of 2025
Bench: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar
