"Adoptive Mother Stayed in India for 3 Years to Care for Child": Bombay HC Allows Relocation to Australia, Rejects Technical Barriers

The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) cannot refuse to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) in cases where an adoption has already been validly completed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), merely because the procedural requirements of the Hague Convention have not been followed.

The Court underscored that not every adoption involving relocation abroad qualifies as an inter-country adoption requiring compliance with the Hague framework.

A Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri held that CARA’s insistence on prior approval from the receiving country was misplaced, observing that such a requirement cannot be treated as a rigid precondition in all cases.

The Court emphasised that the statutory scheme does not support such an inflexible approach and that the authority is bound to act within the limits of its role.

The case concerned a couple of Indian origin, one of whom had acquired Australian citizenship, who had adopted a minor girl child from close relatives shortly after her birth.

The adoption was carried out through a registered deed, accompanied by religious ceremonies and full compliance with the requirements under HAMA.

However, when the couple sought to take the child to Australia, the process ran into administrative hurdles.

Australian authorities indicated that communication from India’s central authority was required, while CARA maintained that the case amounted to an inter-country adoption governed by the Adoption Regulations, 2022, necessitating compliance with the Hague Convention, including prior clearance from the receiving country.

CARA further took the position that it had no role in adoptions carried out under HAMA and could not process the request unless the petitioners complied with the regulatory framework governing relocation of adopted children abroad.

Rejecting this stand, the High Court carefully examined the statutory framework and drew a clear distinction between prospective inter-country adoptions and adoptions already completed under HAMA.

The Bench noted that Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act explicitly excludes HAMA adoptions from its scope and that CARA’s role in such cases is limited to facilitating the child’s movement abroad.

Importantly, the Court relied on Section 60(2) of the JJ Act to hold that once the District Magistrate has verified the adoption and the necessary application is made, CARA is obligated to issue an NOC. The provision, the Court noted, requires only that such issuance be intimated to immigration authorities, and does not envisage any prior approval from the receiving country.

Reinforcing this interpretation, the Bench observed that reading the requirement of “necessary permission” under the Hague Convention as mandatory in every case would distort the statutory language. It cautioned that “adopting a rigid construction… would render the word 'necessary' otiose,” making it clear that such permissions are context-dependent rather than universally required.

The Court also took note of communications from Australian authorities, which described the present case as an “expatriate adoption” falling outside the Hague Convention framework. This, the Bench observed, further weakened CARA’s insistence on treating the case as a conventional inter-country adoption.

Drawing support from earlier rulings, including the Top Court’s decision in Prema Gopal and the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Jasleen Iqbal Sidhu, the Bench reiterated that CARA cannot impose additional procedural hurdles once a valid HAMA adoption is established and verified.

At the same time, the Court clarified that CARA cannot entirely disclaim jurisdiction either. While the validity of the adoption is governed by HAMA, the authority does play a role in enabling the child’s relocation abroad by issuing the necessary NOC.

On facts, the Court found that the adoption was genuine, duly documented, and supported by verification reports, including a positive recommendation from the District Child Protection authorities. The adoptive parents had demonstrated both intent and capacity to care for the child, and the arrangement was found to be in the child’s best interests.

In these circumstances, the Court held that CARA’s refusal to process the case was unjustified and contrary to the statutory scheme.

Accordingly, the High Court directed CARA to process the application and issue the requisite No Objection Certificate in accordance with law, clearing the way for the child to relocate with her adoptive parents.

Notably, the judgment opened with a reminder of the human dimension of adoption, quoting: “Adopting one child will not change the world: but for that child, the world will change.”

Case Title: Mangesh Bhaskarrao Manwatkar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Abhay J. Mantri

Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026