Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Madras High Court: Adoption Deeds Not Registrable Without Compliance With Statutory Framework

21 November 2024 8:05 PM

By: sayum


Adoption Deeds Have No Legal Sanctity Without Compliance with Juvenile Justice Act, Madras High Court, through Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, dismissed a writ petition seeking the registration of an adoption deed under the Muslim Personal Law. The Court ruled that adoption deeds are not legally valid unless executed in compliance with the procedures mandated by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Adoption Regulations, 2017.
"The registration of an adoption deed without following the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, or proving a valid custom lacks legal sanctity and is a futile exercise."
 

The petitioners, a Muslim couple (petitioners 1 and 2), sought to adopt their niece (the third petitioner’s daughter) and executed an adoption deed dated July 9, 2018. They approached the Sub-Registrar’s office for registration of the deed, which was refused on the grounds that Muslim Personal Law does not recognize adoption, and the Registration Act, 1908, does not mandate registration of adoption deeds.

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to compel the Sub-Registrar to register their adoption deed.

Issues Raised

  1. Whether adoption is recognized under Muslim Personal Law.

  2. Whether the adoption deed is registrable under the Registration Act, 1908.

  3. Whether the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, overrides personal laws in matters of adoption.

1. Adoption Under Muslim Personal Law

  • The Court referred to the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, which does not include adoption as a recognized mode of filiation.

  • Citing earlier precedents, the Court observed that Islamic law traditionally does not permit adoption, though customs permitting adoption may be recognized if proven in civil courts.

Court’s Observation:
"Adoption is not recognized under Muslim Personal Law unless it is based on custom, and such custom must be proven before competent courts."
[Paras 11-12, 15]

2. Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – A Uniform Framework

  • The Court highlighted the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which provides a uniform procedure for adoption irrespective of religion, including:

    • Registration of prospective adoptive parents.

    • Filing applications in civil courts for adoption orders.

    • Following Adoption Regulations, 2017, notified under the Act.

  • The Supreme Court's ruling in Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (2014) was cited, which upheld the Juvenile Justice Act as an enabling legislation, allowing individuals of all religions to adopt under its framework.

Court’s Observation:
"The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Adoption Regulations, 2017, provide the only legally valid framework for adoption in India, superseding personal laws."
[Para 13]

3. Registration of Adoption Deeds

  • Sections 17 and 18 of the Registration Act, 1908, were analyzed. The Court held that adoption deeds are not compulsorily registrable documents, and even if registered, they lack legal sanctity unless executed under a valid statutory framework.

  • The Court emphasized that allowing the registration of such deeds would enable misuse, such as trafficking or illegal activities.

Court’s Observation:
"Adoption deeds cannot confer any legal rights unless supported by an adoption order under the Juvenile Justice Act. Their registration is not mandatory under the Registration Act."
[Paras 16-17]

4. The Role of Custom in Adoption

  • The Court acknowledged the legal validity of customary adoption practices, provided the custom is pleaded and proven before competent courts.

  • However, the petitioners did not provide any evidence of a prevailing custom or follow the procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Court’s Observation:
"Customs allowing adoption must be established in competent civil courts. Without such proof, the adoption deed executed by the petitioners has no legal value."
[Para 15]

Directions Issued by the Court

  1. Writ Petition Dismissed:
    The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the registration of the adoption deed would serve no purpose as it lacked legal validity.

  2. Follow Adoption Regulations:
    The petitioners were directed to proceed under the Adoption Regulations, 2017, notified under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

  3. Circular to Registrars:
    The Inspector General of Registration, Tamil Nadu, was instructed to issue a circular directing all Registrars to refrain from registering adoption deeds unless they comply with the statutory provisions.

Court’s Statement:
"The Inspector General of Registration shall ensure that no adoption deeds are registered without compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and other relevant laws."
[Para 20]

Key Takeaways

1. Uniform Adoption Framework

The judgment reinforces that the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, establishes a uniform legal framework for adoption across all religions. Adoptions conducted outside this framework lack legal sanctity.

2. Limited Role of Custom

While customs permitting adoption may be recognized, they must be proven in civil courts. Without such proof, the Court ruled, customary adoption cannot override statutory procedures.

3. Restriction on Registration

The Court explicitly barred Registrars from registering adoption deeds that do not adhere to the Juvenile Justice Act, highlighting the importance of preventing misuse and ensuring child welfare.

4. Legal Clarity for Muslim Adopters

The judgment clarifies that while Muslim Personal Law does not recognize adoption, Muslims are free to adopt under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which is a secular, enabling legislation.

The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for adoption, regardless of religious beliefs or personal laws. By affirming the supremacy of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Court ensures uniformity, transparency, and accountability in adoption practices, while also protecting the welfare of children.

Date of Judgment: November 12, 2024

Similar News