CARA To Issue NOC For Child Adopted Under HAMA; Hague Convention Not Attracted In Expatriate Adoption: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention would not apply where the competent authority of the receiving country has categorically stated that the adoption is an "expatriate adoption" falling outside its regulated inter-country adoption process. The Court further observed that although the adoption in question was governed by the Adoption Regulations, 2022,...
The Bombay High Court has held that Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention would not apply where the competent authority of the receiving country has categorically stated that the adoption is an "expatriate adoption" falling outside its regulated inter-country adoption process.
The Court further observed that although the adoption in question was governed by the Adoption Regulations, 2022, it had to be considered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the validity of the adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) and the stand taken by the Australian authorities.
A Division Bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Abhay J. Mantri was hearing a writ petition filed by an adoptive couple seeking directions to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to enable their adopted daughter to relocate to Australia.
The child had been adopted under HAMA through a registered adoption deed executed on 21 April 2023, when she was 45 days old. After the adoptive father became an Australian citizen and the adoptive mother subsequently acquired Australian citizenship, the couple approached CARA.
CARA informed them that since the adoptive father was an Australian citizen holding an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card, the case fell under Chapter VIII of the Adoption Regulations, 2022 governing inter-country HAMA adoptions. The petitioners, however, relied upon an email dated 28 April 2025 from Inter-Country Adoption Australia stating that the adoption was an "expatriate adoption", fell outside Australia's regulated inter-country adoption process and was therefore not considered an inter-country adoption.
The Court examined the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Adoption Regulations, 2022 and the Hague Convention. It noted that while Regulation 68 would ordinarily apply to adoptions initiated after 17 September 2021, the peculiar facts of the present case did not permit enforcement of the procedure prescribed under Regulation 68(2) to (6), as the child had already been legally adopted under HAMA from a close relative and those events could not now be reversed.
“… in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the procedure under sub-clauses (2) to (6) cannot be enforced upon this case as the adopted child is from the family of a close relative and the adoption has legally taken place under the HAMA,” the Court observed.
The Court also observed that neither the Juvenile Justice Act nor the Adoption Regulations, 2022 define the expression "expatriate adoption", though there was no dispute regarding the legality of the adoption under HAMA.
The court noted that the Australian authorities had categorically stated that the present adoption was not an inter-country adoption and that Articles 5 and 17 of the Hague Convention would therefore not apply. Hence, it directed the adoptive parents to follow Regulations 69 and 70 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
The Court directed the District Magistrate to complete the verification under Regulation 69 within thirty days and, upon receipt of the verification certificate, directed CARA to issue the NOC within fifteen days under intimation to the immigration authorities of India and Australia.
Case Title: Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 16232 of 2025]