The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a significant judgment facilitating the adoption of a minor boy by his mother and her second husband. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in adoption matters, and it held that the biological father’s failure to provide a definitive response to the adoption application can be interpreted as implied consent. The bench presiding over the matter was Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.
The factual background of the case involves a minor, aged 16, whose parents had previously divorced by mutual consent. In the divorce proceedings, the family court had granted the mother sole guardianship of the child while the biological father relinquished all visitation and custody rights. Following the divorce, the mother remarried, and together with her second husband, she sought to adopt her biological child officially. To proceed with the adoption under the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) guidelines, the consent of the biological father was required.
During the proceedings, the biological father did not explicitly object to the adoption but also did not actively provide consent. His legal counsel informed the Court that the father would not take a definitive position on whether the adoption could be allowed. This non-committal stance created a procedural challenge, as CARA and the appointed Amicus Curiae—Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol—argued that the father’s silence should be construed as tacit consent. They contended that there was no evidence of objection or reason to prevent the adoption, and that the father’s lack of participation in the process should not delay or frustrate the child’s best interests.
The Court agreed with this interpretation. Justice Prasad observed that the father’s refusal to provide a definitive answer effectively amounted to implied consent. The judgment stressed that in adoption matters, the interests and welfare of the child take precedence over technical procedural requirements. The Court highlighted that the father had voluntarily relinquished guardianship rights in the divorce proceedings and had since remained silent, showing neither interest nor objection in the adoption process. Therefore, his non-action could reasonably be construed as consent.
This ruling demonstrates the judiciary’s balancing of parental rights with the welfare of the child. It establishes that in circumstances where a biological parent has abandoned active participation or waived guardianship rights, their silence or inaction cannot obstruct an adoption process that is in the child’s best interest. The judgment also reflects the Court’s pragmatic approach to interpreting procedural requirements under adoption law, ensuring that technicalities do not hinder the child’s legal and emotional well-being.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s decision provides clarity on interpreting a biological parent’s silence in adoption cases. By recognizing implied consent, the Court reinforced the principle that the welfare and best interests of the child are the central concern in adoption matters. This judgment not only facilitated the legal adoption of the minor by his mother and stepfather but also set an important precedent for future cases where parental inaction may otherwise impede a child-centered adoption process.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.