CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Children of Indian Citizens Adopted Abroad Cannot Be Left Marooned: Karnataka High Court Directs CARA to Issue No Objection Certificate for Cross-Border Adoption

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin

The High Court of Karnataka emphasized the need for legal sanctity in India for children adopted abroad by Indian citizens, stating, “Children of Indian Citizens Adopted Abroad Cannot Be Left Marooned.”

The petitioners, Indian citizens residing in Kenya, had adopted a child in Uganda. Seeking legal recognition in India, they approached CARA but faced inaction. The matter revolves around cross-border adoption and the complexities arising due to India being a signatory to the Hague Convention, while Uganda is not.

Facts and Issues: The petitioners, who lived in Uganda from 2011 to 2018, legally adopted a child there. Their requests to CARA for recognizing the adoption in India were not responded to, leading to this legal battle. The key issue was the legal recognition of an adoption process completed in a non-Hague Convention country by Indian citizens.

Legal Framework Applicability: The Juvenile Justice Act and CARA Regulations were applicable. However, the unique situation of the petitioners, involving a non-Hague signatory country, led the court to interpret the laws innovatively.

Judicial Review and Adaptation of Laws: The court highlighted its role in adapting laws to unique situations, citing the English case of Seaford Estate V. Asher.

Foreign Judgments in India: Applying Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court recognized the Ugandan court’s judgments as conclusive, provided certain conditions are met.

CARA’s Role and Responsibilities: The court directed CARA to consider the petitioners’ representation and to issue a No Objection Certificate, harmonizing international and national legal norms.

Decision: The court ordered CARA to process the representation by the petitioners and grant a No Objection Certificate for the adoption within six weeks.

Date of Decision: 26th March 2024

Sri Ravi Kumar C. & Smt. B. Tanuja v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & State Adoption Resource Authority

 

Latest Legal News

  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:15 AM
Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:14 AM
Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:13 AM
Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:12 AM
Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 7:11 AM
Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit
  • by sayum
    16 February 2026 6:35 AM
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones