A valid adoption permits recording the adoptive father’s name in birth and school records.

Petitioner No. 1’s first husband died in 2016. She later married petitioner No. 2 and, on 26 March 2022, executed a registered declaration of adoption placing her daughter, petitioner No. 3, in adoption to petitioner No. 2.

Her request to change the father’s name in the child’s birth certificate and school records was rejected: respondent No. 3 stated that adoption was not available under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”), while respondent No. 4 required a civil court decree declaring the adoption.

The petitioners challenged those endorsements.

Whether the adoption of petitioner No. 3 by petitioner No. 2, pursuant to the registered declaration executed by her biological mother, could be recognised under HAMA without a civil court decree.

Whether the petitioners could seek correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate and school records on the basis of that adoption.

The Court considered HAMA, particularly Sections 9 to 11, and concluded that the adoption declaration satisfied the requirements of Sections 10 and 11.

It also relied on Section 12 of HAMA, under which an adopted child is deemed the child of the adoptive parent for all purposes from the date of adoption, with the child’s ties to the birth family severed and replaced by ties to the adoptive family.

Applying *Mrs. Akella Lalitha v. Sri Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another*, Civil Appeal Nos. 6325–6326 of 2015 (28 July 2022), the Court recognised that a mother who is the child’s natural guardian after the biological father’s death may include the child in her new family and give the child in adoption to her subsequent husband; it also noted the Supreme Court’s statement that an adoption deed is not invariably necessary.

The Court additionally relied on the coordinate-bench decisions in *Srivastsa M. Subodha and Others v. Government of Karnataka and Another* and *Sri Manhohara v. State of Karnataka and Another*.

The Court examined the registered declaration and found that it met the statutory requirements for adoption under HAMA.

It therefore rejected the respondents’ premise that adoption could not occur in these circumstances and that the petitioners first needed a civil court decree.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision and the applicable statutory provisions, the Court held that the endorsements were inconsistent with the valid adoption and the resulting right to seek correction of the child’s records.

The petitioners were permitted to submit representations with a certified copy of the order for correction of the father’s name in the birth certificate and to the relevant respondents.

After correction of the birth certificate to name petitioner No. 2 as the child’s father, respondent No. 4 was directed to make the corresponding changes in the school records.

The birth-record correction was to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the representation, and the school-record changes within four weeks thereafter.