Adoption Without Registered Deed Has No Legal Standing, Custody Stays With Birth Parents: Allahabad High Court

A division bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar dismissed a special appeal filed by Arun and another challenging an order of a single judge dated August 11, 2025, which had rejected their claim of custody over a minor girlon the ground that their adoption deed was not registered.

The case arose from a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the natural parents of the child where the single judge had directed that child's custody remain with them.

In appeal to that decision, the adoptive parents of the girl contended that they were her parents based on a notarized adoption deed and relied on a 2014 Allahabad High Court decision in Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P., to argue that registration was not mandatory.

The bench, however, examined the legal framework governing adoptions in Uttar Pradesh and concluded otherwise.

Citing Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976, the court observed that the state amendment had made registration of adoption deeds compulsory for all adoptions taking place after January 1, 1977.

“The conjoint reading of the amended Section 16(2) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear that after January 1, 1977, any adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only by way of a registered deed and not otherwise,” the court noted in its verdict.

Rejecting the appellants’ reliance on the 2014 judgment, the bench clarified that the earlier decision was delivered in the context of compassionate appointment, where a succession certificate had already been issued and post-retiral benefits were granted. “Those observations cannot be extended to the determination of adoption validity,” the court said.

The bench further explained that the proviso allowing for secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be invoked when the primary evidence i.e., a registered adoption deed, never existed. “Secondary evidence would be admissible only when the primary document existed but is not available for any reason. Here, the appellants admit that only a notarized deed existed,” the order stated.

Holding that no exception could be carved out of the statutory mandate, the High Court concluded that the adoption deed relied upon by the appellants was invalid in law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the single judge’s order upholding the custody rights of the natural guardians was sustained.