Kerala High Court Points Lacuna In Law After Adoptive Parents Seek To Annul Daughter's Adoption Upon Her Attaining Majority, Appoints Amicus

The Kerala High Court today orally pointed the lacunae in law after a couple, who had adopted a girl child (now a major), sought its permission to annul the adoption on the ground that she hasn't integrated into the family.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was of the firm view that the provisions relied upon by the petitioners' counsel could not be invoked, since the child had now turned 18-years-old, due to which the Child Welfare Committee ('CWC') could not be approached for annulling the adoption.

"The child was a child when adopted, now she’s a woman. How will you annul it?...And where will she be sent? CWC has lost control over her now. They are not in charge. From today, I must treat her as a woman since she is now 18, not as a child. And I have to ensure her safety. You’ve given up, its now for me to take care of her. CWC cannot do anything now. If I declare so, she’ll be left nowhere. So I have to make sure she’s protected right away and I need a specialized agency for that. I am worried," Justice Ramachandran orally noted.

The adoptive parents had adopted the girl when she was still a child, from Ludhiana. The petitioners alleged that the child was unable to integrate with the family, and was also attacking the adoptive mother. 

Justice Ramachandran perused the report of the District Legal Services Authority, Trivandrum (DLSA), which stated that the girl, who recently turned 18 years old, expressed an intense desire to return to her parental state in Ludhiana, Punjab. It was however added that the same could be due to the fact that she feels forlorn on being 'virtually abandoned' by her adoptive parents. 

The Court was also informed that the girl was presently staying in a home for women. 

During the hearing today, Advocate S. Nirmal, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-parents, averred that despite their best efforts, the child could not be integrated in the family, nor could she identify herself as the daughter of her adoptive parents. He detailed various provisions (under JJ Act, JJ Model Rules 2016) that could be invoked to annul the adoption. The counsel also sought to invoke the Doctrine of Necessity.

"For me, the welfare of the girl is paramount. I am scared to send her away. I cannot send her back to Ludhiana. How can I ensure her welfare there?," Justice Ramachandran orally remarked. He said the case involves serious legal and factual scenario, such as whether the provisions cited by the petitioners for annulment of adoption would apply, considering that the girl had now attained majority, and how the Court could also order the girl to be returned to her home state, as per her intent, considering that her protection and safety could not be guaranteed if she is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. 

"Larger issues also arise as to how girl is to be protected in future, particularly, keeping in mind her career and her marriage later in life," the Court observed. It thus appointed Advocate Parvathi Menon as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter. 

It also directed Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose to obtain instructions from Department of Women and Child Welfare as to their suggestions in ensuring that the girl would have a 'full life ahead', notwithstanding the controversy which revolved around her in the present case. 

The matter has been posted for further consideration on November 27, 2023 (Monday). 

Case Title: XXX v. Child Welfare Committee

Case Number: WP(C) 35823/ 2023