Why 13-year-old’s adoption plea was nearly ruined by delays—and how Calcutta High Court saved it
Adoption maintainable if child under 15 on filing date, Calcutta High Court rules, setting aside trial court order citing procedural delay and child welfare principles.
The trial court dismissed the application because, due to procedural delay, the child had turned 15 and was ineligible to be adopted, the court said. (Image is generated using AI)
Calcutta High Court news: Holding that the child’s interest is paramount, the Calcutta High Court set aside the trial court’s rejection of an adoption plea based on procedural delay, ruling that an application remains maintainable if the child was below 15 at the time of filing.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) was hearing a man’s plea challenging the trial court’s order rejecting his adoption application due to the court’s procedural lapse, which led to the elapsed requisite time, making the child’s age ineligible for adoption.
“The fundamental principles to govern adoptions of children are based on the child’s best interest, whose welfare shall be of primary interest, ” the order noted on March 23.
The order dated April 23, 2024, passed by the District Judge, Nadia, is set aside, the court said.
Child’s best interest
The court finds that the fundamental principles to govern adoptions of children are based on the child’s best interest, whose welfare shall be of primary interest.
A fundamental right of a person shall be affected if an order is passed against him, even though he has been diligent in claiming that right, and it is the delay in the procedure of the court, which, if accepted, shall extinguish an important right of a person.
Taking the age as on the date of application, as 13 years 11 months, the application under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act dated April 18, 2022, is held to be maintainable.
The order dated April 23, 2024, passed by the District Judge, Nadia, is set aside.
The petitioner filed an application for adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, on April 18, 2022.
At that time, the child was 13 years and 11 months old, and met the requirements of the act.
Section 10(10) of the HAMA Act requires the person capable of being adopted to be under 15 years of age.
The trial court dismissed the application because, due to procedural delay, the child had turned 15 and was ineligible to be adopted.
Precedents
Sonika Sahay’s case (2010), the Bombay High Court held that Adoption is a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live that is asserted is, on the one hand, the right of parents and of individual women and men who seek to adopt a child to give meaning and content to their lives. Equally significant, in the context of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the right to life that is specially protected is the right of children who need special care and protection. The legislature has recognised its need for rehabilitation and social integration to obviate the disruptive social consequences of destitution, abandonment and surrender. There is legislative recognition of adoption as a means to serve the welfare of orphaned, abandoned and surrendered children.
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005), the Supreme Court held that the Act was not only beneficial legislation but that it was also remedial in character. The Constitution bench held that the statute must be construed in a manner that would make it effective and operative on the principle of ut res magis valet quam pereat.
Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1982), the Supreme Court held that the Rajasthan Children Act, 1970, was regarded as a piece of social legislation which the court held would have to be “liberally and meaningfully construed”. 19. Adoption is a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right to live that is asserted is, on the one hand, the right of parents and of individual women and men who seek to adopt a child to give meaning and content to their lives. Equally significant, in the context of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the right to life that is specially protected is the right of children who require special care and protection.
CARA guidelines
CARA (Central Adoption Resource Authority) guidelines provide the age criteria of prospective parents on the date of registration with the adoption agency and not on the date the court grants the decree of adoption, which takes a certain period of time for its completion.
Though CARA guidelines, provide the age criteria of parents vis-a-vis the child on the date of registering with the adoption agency, this court is of the view that the age as on the date of application shall apply in this case and not as on the date of order, in view of the fact that the delay is a procedural delay, on the part of the court and not the applicant, who cannot be prejudiced for no fault of his, and if so done, shall be against the principle of natural justice.
Somya Panwar works with the Legal Desk at The Indian Express, where she covers the various High Courts across the country and the Supreme Court of India. Her writing is driven by a deep interest in how law influences society, particularly in areas of gender, feminism, and women’s rights.
She is especially drawn to stories that examine questions of equality, autonomy, and social justice through the lens of the courts. Her work aims to make complex legal developments accessible, contextual, and relevant to everyday readers, with a focus on explaining what court decisions mean beyond legal jargon and how they shape public life.
Alongside reporting, she manages the social media presence for Indian Express Legal, where she designs and curates posts using her understanding of digital trends, audience behaviour, and visual communication. Combining legal insight with strategic content design, she works on building engagement and expanding the desk’s digital reach.
Somya holds a B.A. LL.B and a Master’s degree in Journalism. Before moving fully into media, she gained experience in litigation and briefly worked in corporate, giving her reporting a strong foundation. ... Read More
The order dated April 23, 2024, passed by the District Judge, Nadia, is set aside, the court said.