Facts
The petitioner is a minor child adopted on 27.06.2023 by Mr. Abhinav Khandelwal and Ms. Hema Pandey, who are Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) residing in Australia.
Source reference: p. 1-2The adoption was conducted per Hindu customs and formalized via an Adoption Deed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA) on 05.03.2024.
Source reference: p. 2On 12.03.2025, the parents applied to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for a No Objection Certificate (NOC). CARA rejected the application on 19.06.2025, citing Regulation 68 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, which requires the receiving country’s Central Authority to sponsor the application.
Source reference: p. 2-3The Australian Government classifies HAMA adoptions as "expatriate adoptions" which fall outside their regulated inter-country adoption process, making compliance with Regulation 68 impossible.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 6Issues
1. Whether the mandatory procedure for inter-country adoption under Regulation 68 of the Adoption Regulations, 2022, can be waived or modified when the receiving country (Australia) classifies the adoption as an "expatriate adoption" and refuses to sponsor the application.
Source reference: p. 3-42. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the issuance of an NOC and Conformity Certificate through the alternative procedure prescribed under Regulations 69 and 70.
Source reference: p. 6, para. 41Law Applied
Regulation 68 (standard procedure for inter-country adoptions post-2021) and Regulations 69 and 70 (procedure for adoptions already concluded under HAMA) of the Adoption Regulations, 2022.
Source reference: p. 3, 6Precedent set by the Bombay High Court in Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar v. Union of India, establishing that where Regulation 68 is rendered impossible due to a foreign country’s policy on "expatriate adoptions," the court must prioritize the child's welfare and apply Regulation 69.
Source reference: p. 4-6, para. 34-36The principle regarding the specific "Support Letter" format required for Australian immigration as per Akshay Pitamber Sarvakar v. CARA.
Source reference: p. 7-8Reasoning
The Court observed that while Regulation 68 generally governs inter-country adoptions initiated after 17.09.2021, its strict application in this case created a legal stalemate as Australian authorities do not process HAMA adoptions as standard inter-country adoptions, meaning the "sponsoring letter" required by Regulation 68(3) would never be issued.
Source reference: p. 4, 6Reasoning that the adoption was legally valid under HAMA and that the child’s future should not be jeopardized by procedural impossibilities, the Court determined that the facts necessitated a shift to Regulation 69.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 35; p. 6, para. 39By following Regulation 69, the scrutiny is shifted to the District Magistrate to verify the HAMA deed’s validity, which then allows CARA to issue an NOC/Support Letter independent of a foreign sponsoring agency.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 10The Court noted that both parties agreed the facts were identical to the Mangesh Bhaskarrao and Akshay Pitamber precedents.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 12Holding
The Court held that CARA cannot insist on Regulation 68 compliance where it is factually impossible.
The Court directed the District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and issue a verification certificate in the format prescribed under Schedules XXXV and XXXVI of the Adoption Regulations, 2022; upon receipt, CARA must issue the NOC and Support Letter to facilitate the child's immigration.
Source reference: p. 9-10, para. 13-14Original Court PDF
Ms.Karnika Khandelwal, Represented By Abhinav Khandelwal And Hema PandeyvsUnion Of India & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in