Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners against the communications from the Central Adoption Resource Agency (‘CARA’) and State Adoption Resource Agency (‘SARA’) insisting on the consent of the biological father in case of adoption of minor child, a Single-Judge Bench of B.M. Shyam Prasad, J., while disposing of the petition, directed the respondents to complete the adoption process. The Court held that when the biological father has not taken a definite stand on the issue, despite an opportunity being given to him, consent could be inferred in favour of the adoption, as the best interest of the minor child is paramount.
The petitioners had applied to CARA for the adoption of a minor child. The first petitioner, the minor’s biological mother and the fifth respondent are the biological parents of the minor child. Their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in matrimonial proceedings. As per the agreement, the mother was to have permanent care and custody of their minor son, and she was to be the sole guardian. The biological father gave up his right to claim any visitation or custody rights in the future. Then petitioners then entered into matrimony and the minor had been living with them. The petitioners, along with the minor, had completed all the formalities for adoption from their side. Through an email communication the CARA asked for providing consent of the biological father of the minor. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed this writ petition.
The Court considered the question of whether an inference of consent could be drawn from the biological father’s actions of not taking a definite stand on whether the petitioner must take the minor in adoption. The Court noted that the biological father had already given up his right to visit the child in the matrimonial proceedings.
The Court also noted that the refusal to take a stand, under these circumstances, must justify an inference in favour of the minor being taken in adoption. Further, the Court reasoned that the biological father had not come forward with 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 observed that if the inference of consent were not drawn, the minor, who is living with the petitioners and is keen on the adoption, could lose the advantage of belonging to the family completely with all consequences that would be.
The Court held that there must be an inference of consent by the biological father in favor of the adoption. The Court directed adoption agencies to consider the completion of the adoption process based on this inference and granted the petitioners the liberty to upload the Court’s order as proof of the biological father’s consent.
[X v. Central Adoption Resource Agency, Writ Petition No. 15957 of 2025 (GM-RES), decided on 22-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Sharandeep, Advocate
For the Respondents: Arvind Kamath, ASG, with Anupama Hegde, CGC for R1; Rahul Cariappa, AGA for R2 to R4; Saravana S, Advocate for R5
Amicus Curiae: Vikram Huilgol, Senior Advocate
