Hyderabad Bench holds that emotional bonding does not justify bypassing statutory adoption procedures, dismissing petition for custody of child procured through unlawful process.
Hyderabad, India: The Telangana High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking restoration of custody of a minor girl child on the basis of an alleged illegal adoption, holding that an emotional bond between adoptive parents and a child cannot be a ground to regularise a process that contravenes statutory law.
The judgment was delivered on 2 February 2026 by a single-judge bench of Justice T. Madhavi Devi, in the matter titled Muthineni Venakanna v. State of Telangana & Ors. (W.P. No. 20162 of 2025).
Background of the Case
The petitioner and his wife, married in 2014, claimed that they had taken a one-month-old girl child into their care in May 2023 after procuring her through an intermediary. The couple asserted that the child was “adopted” through a ritual known as Datha Homam and raised with love and affection, celebrating birthdays and other milestones.
In June 2025, following complaints alleging the sale of children, police registered a case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 80, 81, 87, and 88 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner, his wife, and the intermediary were arrayed as accused, and the child was taken from their custody and placed in a Child Protection Centre under the supervision of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).
Aggrieved by the removal of the child and the ongoing investigation, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking an order for restoration of custody. The primary contention was that the child’s welfare and best interests lay in remaining with them, given the emotional bond developed over years.
Legal Question Before the Court
The central legal issue was whether custody of a child procured through a process not recognised by law, and subject to an ongoing investigation into child trafficking, could be restored to a petitioner on the ground of emotional attachment and caregiving.
The petitioner relied on a Supreme Court order in Dasari Anil Kumar v. Child Welfare Project Director, where adoptive parents were granted custody under extraordinary powers, though the High Court noted that the Supreme Court had expressly stated it was not to serve as a precedent.
High Court’s Findings
Justice Madhavi Devi observed that the manner in which the child was procured did not align with any lawful adoption process recognised under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 or the guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). It was emphasised that sale or procurement of a child for any purpose is expressly prohibited and punishable under Section 81 of the Act.
The Court noted material on record suggesting that the intermediary involved had been implicated in the sale of several children, raising significant concerns about child trafficking. It remarked that even if the couple had taken care of the child affectionately, the “method they adopted to procure the child cannot be appreciated or approved.”
Rejecting the argument that emotional bonding justified custody restoration, the Court held that granting relief on such grounds would amount to legitimising illegal adoptions and could potentially encourage trafficking of children.
In addressing the petitioner’s reliance on the Dasari Anil Kumar order, the Court clarified that that Supreme Court decision was passed under Article 142 of the Constitution in extraordinary circumstances and was expressly not a precedent to be routinely applied.
Final Ruling
The Telangana High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to restore custody of the child to the petitioner and his wife. The bench held that the adoption was not lawful and that the child’s custody with the CWC, a body established under the Juvenile Justice Act to safeguard children in need of care and protection, could not be termed illegal.
Practical Implications
- The judgment reinforces the requirement that adoption must strictly follow statutory procedures under the Juvenile Justice Act and CARA guidelines, and that informal or traditional methods lacking legal sanction cannot be validated by courts simply on the basis of emotional bonding.
- It highlights the judiciary’s emphasis on preventing child trafficking, underlining that departures from legal processes can undermine child protection frameworks.
- The ruling dissociates emotional attachment from legal entitlement in custody claims involving unlawful actions, clarifying that emotions alone cannot override statutory safeguards designed to protect children’s welfare.
- The decision also clarifies the limited precedential value of certain Supreme Court orders passed under Article 142, signaling that they cannot be broadly relied upon to validate similar claims outside their specific contexts.
The judgment adds clarity on the limits of emotional bonding as a basis for regularising illegal adoptions and underscores the supremacy of statutory adoption procedures in safeguarding children’s welfare.
