In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court underscored that the marital status of a Hindu woman should not be the decisive factor in matters concerning the adoption of her biological child.

The single-headed bench of Justice GR Swaminathan emphasized that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, employs terms such as "father" and "mother," rather than "husband" and "wife." The judge highlighted that under Section 9 of the Act, even the provision under sub-section (2) does not mandate consent from a spouse if alive.

The judge elaborated that circumstances might involve a child born from a live-in relationship or due to illicit relations. In such cases, the mother may seek adoption to secure a better future for the child, especially if the father has abandoned them or is absent.

The court's remarks came in response to a writ petition challenging the denial of an adoption deed by district authorities. The petitioner and his wife had sought to adopt a three-year-old boy born from an illicit relationship, where the biological mother was a minor at the time of conception.

Initially, the registration of the adoption deed was refused because the child's biological mother, now an adult, was unmarried, and thus consent from the biological father was deemed necessary. The writ petition contested this decision.

The court noted that since all parties involved were Hindus, the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 applied. The central issue was whether the adoption could proceed without the consent of the child's biological father.

Referring to Section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the court concluded that the biological mother was competent to give the child up for adoption in the present circumstances.

Further clarifying, the court explained that the proviso to Section 9(2) of the Act concerning the father's consent applies only if the father is actively claiming paternity.

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Githa Hariharan v. RBI (1999), the court interpreted that "after" in Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act need not necessarily mean "after the lifetime," but rather "in the absence of." Thus, if the father is absent from the child's life and the mother assumes sole responsibility, she can act as the natural guardian.

In this case, the court found that although the biological father was alive, he had effectively been absent from the child's life, thereby justifying the mother's authority to decide on adoption without his consent.

Concluding the matter, the court praised the petitioner and his wife for their decision to adopt the child. It overturned the previous decision and allowed the parties to resubmit the adoption documents. The court instructed the registering authority to process the adoption deed upon resubmission, subject to standard formalities.

Case Title: Ashok Kumar v. The Inspector General of Registration and Others