Illegal Adoption Cannot Be Regularised On Grounds Of Emotional Bonding With Child: Telangana High Court

The High Court of Telangana, in a recent judgment, rejected a plea filed by a man seeking restoration of custody of a minor girl child who had been taken from his care after police registered a case alleging illegal adoption and child trafficking. The Court held that custody could not be granted where the child was procured through a process not recognised by law, and that an emotional bond between the child and the adoptive parents cannot be a ground to regularise an illegal adoption.

Justice T. Madhavi Devi dismissed the writ petition, observing that granting relief in such cases would amount to legitimising illegal adoptions and would encourage trafficking of children.

The petitioner and his wife, who were married in 2014 and remained childless, despite severe efforts, claimed that they had adopted a one-month-old girl child in May 2023 after procuring her through an intermediary. According to the petitioner, the adoption was performed by conducting Datha Homam, and the child was thereafter brought up by them as their own, with love and affection, including grand celebrations such as birthdays and the cradle ceremony.

However, in June 2025, following complaints alleging sale of children, the police registered a criminal case for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 80, 81, 87 and 88 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner and his wife were arrayed as accused, and the child was taken from their custody and placed in a Child Protection Centre under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee.

Aggrieved by the action of the authorities, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of custody of the child, contending that the child had been taken without notice and that her welfare lay in being returned to them.

The Court was called upon to consider whether the custody of a child, allegedly procured through an illegal adoption and forming part of an ongoing investigation into child trafficking, could be restored to the petitioner on the ground that the child had developed an emotional bond with the adoptive parents.

The petitioner contended that he and his wife had cared for the child since infancy and were emotionally and financially able to raise her. Reliance was placed on a Supreme Court order in Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director, where custody had been granted to adoptive parents.

Conversely, the State opposed the plea, submitting that the child had been procured through payment of consideration and that the facts disclosed a case of child trafficking. It was argued that adoptions must be carried out strictly in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act and the guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), and that the Supreme Court order relied upon by the petitioner was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution and was not a precedent. The State further contended that the intermediary through which the child had been procured had been involved in the sale of several children, and his involvement in a child trafficking racket had also been alleged.

The High Court held that the child had not been adopted through any lawful process recognised under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Referring to Section 81 of the Act, it further noted that the sale or procurement of a child for any purpose is expressly prohibited and punishable.

The Court observed that a criminal case had been registered against the petitioner, his wife, and the intermediary, and that the material on record indicated a case of child trafficking. It held that even if the couple had taken good care of the girl child, the method they adopted to procure the child “cannot be appreciated or approved”.

“…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. 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. In this case, it appears that the petitioner and his wife have taken good care of the child, but the procedure adopted by them for taking a child in adoption cannot be appreciated or approved”, the Court held.

Further, rejecting the argument based on emotional bonding, the Court held that granting custody on such a ground would amount to prescribing and legitimising illegal adoptions, thereby encouraging trafficking of children. The Court emphasised that the CARA framework provides the only lawful mechanism for the adoption of orphaned or abandoned children and that prospective adoptive parents must follow the statutory process.

It further clarified that the Supreme Court's order in Dasari Anil Kumar was passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 and was expressly stated not to operate as a precedent, and therefore could not be relied upon to seek similar relief.

Consequently, holding that no relief could be granted in a case involving alleged child trafficking and an adoption not recognised by law, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to direct restoration of custody of the child to the petitioner.

Case: Muthineni Venakanna v State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and eight others

Case No: W.P.NO. 20162 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order