The Allahabad High Court has granted permission for a woman with four biological children to proceed with the adoption of a child, even though it conflicts with the Adoption Regulations 2022. These regulations, established by the Central Government under Section 68(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, typically prohibit such adoptions.

Rule 5 of the Adoption Regulations provides that couples with two or more children are eligible to adopt special needs or hard-to-place children, except in cases where they are relatives or stepchildren of the prospective adoptive parents.

In this context, when granting custody of X to the petitioner, her foster parent, the bench, consisting of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Manjive Shukla, made the following observation:

“While the law could not prevent the petitioner from giving birth to another child, it has been relied to deprive the petitioner from bringing up another child as her own. To take away X from the petitioner is the easiest part in law but it is not possible for law to find another set of parents X may identify as its own.''

In 2014, Child (X) was entrusted to the petitioner by a third party. Despite already having four children, the petitioner took in X, and there were no objections from state authorities or any other individuals until November 2021. In November 2021, X was abducted by the same person who initially entrusted the child to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before the Child Welfare Committee, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, leading to X's rescue.

Following the counselor's report indicating that the child desired to return to her parents (petitioner), custody of X was awarded to the petitioner. Despite no complaints regarding the care provided by the petitioner to X, the District Probation Officer submitted a report to the District Magistrate, Agra, suggesting that X would be better off in the care of a state facility rather than with the petitioner. Consequently, based on the report of the District Probation Officer, X was relocated from the custody of the petitioner.

The petitioner appealed to the High Court challenging the decision of the Child Welfare Committee, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, to revoke custody of X from the petitioner, as well as the decision of the CWC to reject the petitioner's application for foster care of X.

Despite certain individuals initially claiming to be X's parents, DNA tests yielded negative results, leading them to withdraw from the proceedings. With no other claims regarding parentage or custody of X, the Court, exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction, observed that...

“In ideal conditions, all children may grow up in the care and love of their biological parents. However, from times immemorial foster care and adoption are established practices in all human societies.''

The Court noted that the counseling report clearly depicted the bond between the petitioner and X as that of a mother and child. It emphasized that X recognized only the petitioner as her mother. Consequently, in the absence of any adverse report, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant custody of X to the petitioner. Moreover, the Court criticized the District Probation Officer for his mechanical approach and vague observations in dismissing the petitioner's application, highlighting the need for a more thorough and thoughtful consideration of the case.

The Court remarked that while the petitioner's adoption application should be evaluated in accordance with the law, the observations made by the Court would be applicable to the unique circumstances of this case. The Court emphasized that in situations where the ends of justice significantly outweigh legal concerns, it is imperative to ensure that the law does not hinder the pursuit of justice.