Adoption under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act Exempt from Juvenile Justice Act Procedures and Regulations

The petitioners, a childless married couple, adopted a male child born on January 5, 2018, to Proforma Respondent No. 6, an unmarried mother

The child was handed over on January 8, 2018; religious ceremonies (Dattak Homan) were performed on February 2, 2018; and a registered Deed of Adoption was executed on March 17, 2018

Respondent No. 3 (District Child Protection Unit) and Respondent No. 5 (CHILDLINE) objected, claiming the adoption violated the Adoption Regulations, 2017, and the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Consequently, an FIR (Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 359/2018) was lodged under Section 80 of the JJ Act

The petitioners sought a mandamus declaring the adoption valid under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, and quashing the criminal proceedings

The Court relied on Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which expressly excludes adoptions made under HAMA from the Act's purview

It applied Section 6 of HAMA regarding requisites for valid adoption

Section 9(1) & (2) regarding persons capable of giving in adoption

Under Section 6(b) of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother is the natural guardian of an illegitimate child

Section 16 of HAMA creates a legal presumption of validity for registered adoption documents

Regulation 4 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017, was interpreted to apply only to orphans, abandoned, or surrendered children as defined therein

The Court reasoned that under Section 56(3) of the JJ Act, 2015, adoptions governed by HAMA are independent of the JJ Act's regulatory framework

Since the biological mother (Respondent No. 6) voluntarily gave the child in adoption and her parents witnessed the deed, the requirements of Section 9 of HAMA were satisfied

Regarding the father’s consent, the court held that in the case of an illegitimate child, the mother is the primary guardian; as the biological father had "renounced the world" and his whereabouts were unknown, the mother had full capacity to give the child in adoption

The court dismissed the respondents' concerns regarding the delay in registration, noting that once a registered deed is produced, Section 16 of HAMA mandates a presumption of legality which the respondents failed to disprove

Consequently, the child was not "in need of care and protection" under Section 2(14) of the JJ Act, rendering the state's interference and the FIR jurisdictional errors

The court declared the actions of the child protection authorities and the institution of criminal proceedings to be without jurisdiction

It directed that the respondents shall not disturb the petitioners or the child and granted the petitioners liberty to present this judgment before the trial court to drop the criminal proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioners