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 their application for registering the adoption deed. Petitioner No.1 is a Muslim minor and the victim of rape, as well as the biological mother of a 51-day-old girl child. Petitioner No.2 is the mother and legal guardian of Petitioner No.1. Petitioners No.3 and 4 are a Muslim married couple who are the prospective adoptive parents. The Sub-Registrar rejected the application on the ground that the biological father of the child was not mentioned as an executing party. The primary legal issue was whether the consent of the biological father, who is the accused in the rape case, is required for the adoption. The petitioners argued that the biological father's consent is not necessary as he is the accused in the rape case and the mother, being the natural guardian, can give valid consent. The court held that the consent of the biological father who is the accused in a rape case is not required for adoption of the child born out of such rape. The court further held that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of an adoption deed on the ground that the adoption is not valid or that certain parties are missing, as the Sub-Registrar's role is limited to ensuring compliance with registration formalities. The court quashed the impugned endorsement and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the adoption deed without insisting on the consent of the biological father.
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 held that the consent of the biological father who is the accused in a rape case is not required for adoption of the child born out of such rape. The mother, being the natural guardian, can give valid consent along with her guardian. The Sub-Registrar's rejection of the adoption deed on the ground that the biological father was not an executing party was quashed. (Paras 2-4) B) Registration Law - Power of Sub-Registrar - Registration Act, 1908, Sections 17, 18 - The court held that the Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration of an adoption deed on the ground that the adoption is not valid or that certain parties are missing. The Sub-Registrar's role is limited to ensuring compliance with registration formalities, not adjudicating the validity of the adoption. (Para 4) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the endorsement rejecting the application for registration of the adoption deed and directed the Sub-Registrar to register the deed without insisting on the consent of the biological father. (Para 4)
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, in addition to the consent already provided by the minor victim mother and her guardian, for the purpose of giving the child up for adoption.
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 without insisting on the consent of the biological father.
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 has no authority to decide validity of adoption
- Writ of certiorari lies against administrative endorsement
