Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an endorsement dated 11.11.2024 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, rejecting their online application for registration of an adoption deed. The petitioners also sought a mandamus directing the respondents to consider and register the adoption deed. The first petitioner is a 16-year-old Muslim minor who was a victim of rape and the biological mother of a 51-day-old girl child. The second petitioner is her mother and legal guardian. The third and fourth petitioners are a Muslim married couple who wish to adopt the child. The Sub-Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the biological father of the child, who is the accused in the rape case, was not mentioned as an executing party. The court framed the primary issue as whether the consent of the biological father, who is the accused in the rape case, is required for the adoption. The petitioners argued that requiring such consent would be against the interest of the child and the victim mother, and that the Sub-Registrar exceeded his authority by adjudicating on the validity of the adoption deed. The court analyzed the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and held that the consent of the biological father is not required in such circumstances, as it would be contrary to the welfare of the child. The court also held that the Sub-Registrar's role is limited to verifying compliance with the Registration Act, 1908, and he cannot refuse registration on the ground that the deed is incomplete or that a particular person's consent is missing. The court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the adoption deed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Adoption Law - Consent of Biological Father - Child Born Out of Rape - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 38 - The court considered whether the consent of the biological father, who is the accused in a rape case, is required for adoption of a child born out of rape. The court held that requiring such consent would be against the interest of the child and the victim mother, and that the consent of the biological father is not necessary in such circumstances. (Paras 2-5) B) Registration Act - Refusal to Register Adoption Deed - Sub-Registrar's Power - Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 35 - The Sub-Registrar rejected the application for registration of an adoption deed on the ground that the biological father was not an executing party. The court held that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration on the ground that the deed is incomplete or that the consent of a particular person is missing, as the Sub-Registrar's role is limited to verifying compliance with the Registration Act. (Paras 2-5) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari and Mandamus - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the endorsement rejecting the registration application and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the adoption deed, as the refusal was arbitrary and without authority of law. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the consent of the biological father of a child born out of rape, who is also the accused in the rape case, is required for the adoption of the child, in addition to the consent already provided by the minor victim mother and her guardian.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned endorsement dated 11.11.2024, and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the adoption deed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Consent of biological father not required for adoption when child is born out of rape and father is accused
- Adoption deed registration cannot be refused on ground of incomplete execution
- Sub-Registrar cannot adjudicate on validity of adoption deed
- Writ of certiorari lies against administrative endorsement rejecting registration
