Telangana HC rejects couple’s plea for 2-year-old trafficked child; says informal adoptions ‘can’t be appreciated’

The petitioner, Muthineni Venakanna, and wife, unable to have biological children, tried for legal adoption, but their application has been pending for several years. Meanwhile, in May 2023, they came to know of a one-month-old girl available for adoption through an intermediary named Nakka Yadagiri. The couple adopted the girl as their own, although illegally, and had been taking good care of her since then.

The petitioner contended that Nakka Yadagiri was booked on charges of child trafficking, and the child in the petitioner’s custody was detained in June 2025 and forcibly taken away by authorities without any notice and lodged in a children’s home in Nalgonda town. The names of the petitioner and his wife have also been added as accused in the FIR. They argued that the child was suffering severe mental agony after being separated from them, and pleaded with the court to return the child to them for adoption legally.

The Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare submitted that Yadagiri was involved in child trafficking and was involved in the sale of several children. She further submitted that there were established procedures through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for legal adoption and that the petitioner, having applied, should wait for their turn.

‘Clear case of child trafficking’

The court noted that the child was procured by the petitioner couple for a certain consideration through an intermediary, who has been booked by the police, and therefore, appeared to be “a clear case of child trafficking”. The court further noted that the adoption by the petitioner couple was not legal and not in accordance with CARA guidelines, and therefore, cannot be approved by the court.

The court acknowledged that the petitioner couple has taken good care of the child, but at the same time, said the procedure adopted by them for taking the child in adoption “cannot be appreciated or approved.” It stated that the petitioner couple has to wait for their turn for adoption as per CARA guidelines.

The court also rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dasari Anil Kumar and another, where the court directed the child to be returned to the adopted parents. The court held that the same cannot be treated as a precedent, as the order was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and it was observed by the SC that the decision shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the child will now remain in government care as the court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.