Gujarat HC: Registered Adoption Deed Is Enough To Prove Adoption Of Child, Civil Court Decree Not Necessary

The Gujarat High Court recently ruled that a registered deed of adoption with a registrar is sufficient to prove child adoption and that a Civil Court decree confirming such deed is not required.

Justice Biren Vaishnav, a single-judge, refused to agree with a Bombay High Court decision in this regard, which held that only a civil court can decide whether the adoption was legal and done after following a proper procedure which stated that removing a child’s biological father’s name from the birth certificate could be drastic.

The judge observed, “In the opinion of this Court, failure to do so and failure to correct the birth certificate of the ward post adoption would lead to multiple hurdles in day-to-day affairs connecting dealings with various public or other authorities, and the practical difficulties that they would face would be more severe if the power under Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act is not exercised in favour of the parties.”

The bench was called upon by a woman who filed a plea wanting to change her son’s middle and last names. The woman had a child from her first marriage.

She later divorced her first husband and married again. Because she had custody of her son after her second marriage, she and her second husband adopted him.

They then attempted to replace the biological father’s name on the child’s birth certificate with the name of the second husband.

However, the civic authorities rejected their application on the grounds that they had only submitted the adoption deed and had not produced a court decree regarding the same.

In his order, Justice Vaishnav noted that another single-judge of the Gujarat High Court had held that as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956, when any adoption deed is registered, there is a presumption in favour of the documents relating to the adoption, and the presumption is that the adoption was in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless it is disproved.

However, the civic authorities pointed out to Justice Vaishnav that the Bombay High Court had ruled that the presumption under Section 16 of the Act must be made before a competent court, not a registrar.

The Gujarat High Court, on the other hand, disagreed.

“With due respect, the Division Bench’s observations that only the Court can consider the presumption of the document’s legality are incorrect. The parties to the Registration Deed have agreed to adopt the child. No objections have been raised by the biological father regarding the mode and manner of adoption, and thus, as held, no roadblock or dispute has been raised for the adoption of the child, relegating the parties to the rigmarole of approaching the Court when the deed of adoption is filed before the Registrar would not render the Registrar powerless to make the corrections,” Justice Vaishnav ruled.

As a result, the bench quashed the civic authorities’ orders and directed the registrar to make the changes as requested by the petitioners.