Can Grandparents Execute an Adoption Deed? What Madras HC Said

The Madras High Court has held that an adoption deed remains valid even if executed by a child’s grandparents, so long as it was made with the concurrence of the biological mother.

Justice M. Dhandapani emphasized that such adoption, done under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), does not require validation through an order of the District Magistrate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

Court was hearing a writ petition filed by A. Kannan, who challenged the rejection of his plea by the Puducherry Registrar of Births and Deaths to update the birth certificate of his adopted daughter, K.S. Saatvika, naming him and his wife, K. Sheela, as parents.

Kannan and his wife, married since 2006, had adopted a baby girl from Vijayalakshmi, who gave birth at Cluny Hospital, Puducherry, in April 2022. The adoption was performed through Hindu rituals in May 2022, followed by a registered adoption deed. Subsequently, a civil court declared the adoption valid, a decree that has since attained finality.

However, the Registrar declined to correct the birth certificate, citing the absence of an adoption order from the District Magistrate as required under the JJ Act and Adoption Regulations, 2022.

Rejecting this stance, the court held that the JJ Act applies only to orphans, abandoned, or surrendered children, or those in conflict with law. Referring to the single judge judgment in K.Heerajohn Vs. The District Registrar & Anr. (2025), Justice Dhandapani said, "The Juvenile Justice Act will not apply to adoption of children made under the HAM Act".

Crucially, court relied on the biological mother’s sworn deposition in the earlier civil suit, where she confirmed that she had given the child in adoption to the petitioners. Justice Dhandapani observed that this evidence substantiated the legality of the adoption despite the grandparents executing the deed.

“The mere fact that the grandparents of the child had executed the adoption deed alone cannot make the adoption deed invalid so long as it was executed with the concurrence of the mother of the child, who is none other than their daughter,” the judge said.

Court further criticised the Registrar’s order as an “administrative overreach”, noting that an administrative authority cannot disregard or override a civil court decree. Once the civil court had declared the adoption valid, it was binding on the government, the court held.

Stressing the humanitarian purpose behind both the HAMA and the JJ Act, the court said these laws were enacted to protect children and facilitate their integration into families, not to create procedural hurdles.

“The authorities at the helm of affairs are to see that the interests of the child are met and so long as the same are met, the intricacies in the process should be best oiled to the benefit of the child so that the adoption process is free and does not suffer blockage due to administrative lacunae as such delay would have a hampering effect on the welfare of the child,” the judge added.

Setting aside the Registrar’s order, court directed the authorities in Puducherry to issue a new birth certificate reflecting the names of Kannan and Sheela as the adoptive parents within four weeks.

Case Title: A.Kannan vs. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others

Order Date: October 25, 2025

Bench: Justice M. Dhandapani