Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v. the Child Welfare Project Director & Others
Judgment
Nagarathna, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the common judgment dated 28.11.2024 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana
in Writ Appeal Nos.1265 of 2024, 1277 of 2024, 1267 of 2024, 1266
of 2024, the appellants respectively are before this Court.
3. The appellants assailed the validity of the action of the police
authorities in taking away the custody of the minor children from them
as they claim to be the “adoptive parents” on the premise that it is
without authority of law. The details of the cases as narrated by the
Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1265 of 2024,
1277 of 2024, 1267 of 2024, 1266 of 2024 are extracted as under:
“In W.A. No.1265 of 2024, it is the case of the respondents
No.1 and 2 that they are the adoptive parents of one
minor girl child, namely D. Maanvika, who is aged about
three years. It is their case that respondents No.1 and
2 were informed through a common friend that a nine
days old baby girl is available for adoption. The aforesaid
respondents therefore adopted the child on 30.03.2024,
in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as,
“the 1956 Act”).
In W.A.No.1277 of 2024, the respondent No.1 claims that
she has adopted a two days old baby girl, namely K. Un1a
Maheshwari, from her biological parents on 15.11.2021,
as they were not in a position to bring up the child.
In W.A.No.1267 of 2024, the respondents No. l and 2 assert
they learnt through a common friend that a twenty days
old baby girl, namely S.Rishika, is put up for adoption.
Therefore, the said respondents adopted the said child
on 26.01.2024 from her biological parents.
In W.A.No.1266 of 2024, the respondents No.l and 2 claim
to be adoptive parents of a minor child, namely B.Sresta.
780 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
It is their case that they adopted the aforesaid two days
old baby girl on 22.01.2024 from the biological parents.”
4. In fact, there were petitioners, who are said to be “adoptive parents”
in nine Writ Petitions before the learned Single Judge of the High
Court, who sought a declaration that action of the Commissioner
of Police, Rachakonda and Station House Officer, Medpally Police
Station in forcibly and illegally taking the custody of the minor children
from the appellants and handing them over to the Child Welfare
Project Director and integrated Child Protection Services, Sishuvihar,
Hyderabad on the basis of the First Information Report No.579 of
2024 dated 22.05.2024 was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 20 of the Constitution of India.
5. The learned single Judge by his common order dated 23.09.2024
passed in W.P.Nos.22020, 19623, 21108, 21980, 21981, 17040, 22026,
22429 and 23727 of 2024 allowed the Writ Petitions and held that the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 (for brevity, “the Act”), did not apply to the fact situation of
the cases and further the action of the police authorities in taking the
custody of the children in question from the appellants herein who
claim to be adoptive parents of the children in question was illegal
and without authority of law. The learned single Judge of the High
Court granted liberty to the appellants herein to adopt the procedure
prescribed for continuation of the custody of the children with them by
validly executing adoption deeds or by following any other procedure
which would allow them to retain the custody of the children forever.
6. Being aggrieved by the said common order dated 23.09.2024
passed by the learned single Judge, the Child Welfare Project
Director, Women, Children, Disabled And Senior Citizen and
Welfare Department, Medchal, Malkajgiri District and Directorate of
Women Development and Child Welfare Department, represented
by its Director, Yusufguda Main Road, Madhuranagar, Yusufguda,
Hyderabad, had preferred the appeals. There were also intervening
application in the Writ Appeals. By the impugned judgment, the
Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana disposed
of the appeals by setting aside the order of the learned single Judge
and observed in paragraphs 25 and 26 as under:
“25. The children in question are in the custody with the
Committee since 22.05.2024. Therefore, presently in the
Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others
obtaining factual matrix of the case, we are not inclined
to disturb the custody of the children on account of
non- compliance of Sections 36, 37 and 38 of 2015 Act.
It is stated before us that social investigation has been
completed.
26. However, it is necessary to issue the following directions:
(1) The Committee shall pass an order in terms of Section
37 of the 2015 Act within a period of two weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the order passed today.
(2) Some of the adoptive parents have filed an seeking
adoption of the children. The competent authority is directed
to decide the application seeking adoption within a period
of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order
passed today.
(3) Needless to state that the custody of the children shall
be subject to outcome of the aforesaid directions.”
7. Hence, these appeals.
8. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondents and learned ASG at length. We have
perused the material on record.
9. The details of the “Adoptive parents” and the children are provided
by learned senior counsel for the appellants in a tabular form, which
is reproduced as under:
SL
No.
SLP
No.
NAME AND
OCCUPATION OF
PARTIES
DISTRICT &
STATE OF
RESIDENCE
OF PARTIES
NAME OF
THE BABY
DATE OF
ADOPTION
DATE OF
CONFISCATION
1.
SLP
(C) No.
6322 of
2025
P1- Dasari Anil
kumar
(Occupation –
Assistant Engineer-
Scientific Assistant,
Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre)
P2- Bezawada
Sathya
(Occupation-
Customer Associate,
State Bank of India)
Prakasam
District,
Andhra
Pradesh
State
D.
Maanvika 30.03.2024 22.05.2024
782 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
SL
No.
SLP
No.
NAME AND
OCCUPATION OF
PARTIES
DISTRICT &
STATE OF
RESIDENCE
OF PARTIES
NAME OF
THE BABY
DATE OF
ADOPTION
DATE OF
CONFISCATION
2.
SLP
(C) No.
4342 of
2025
Sole Petitioner –
Kandala Padma
(Occupation –
Village Organization
Assistant)
Husband – Late
Kandala Venkat
Reddy (Passed away
on 05.05.2023, after
the adoption)
Nalgonda
District,
Telangana
State
K. Uma
Maheshwari 15.11.2021 22.05.2024
3.
SLP
(C) No.
6426 of
2025
P1 – Shulla Mallesh
(Occupation – Senior
Graphic Designer,
BRK News)
P2- Sowla Sruthi
(Occupation –
Pharmacist in Apollo
Pharmacy)
Medchal-
Malkajgiri
District,
Telangana
State
S. Rishika 26.01.2024 22.05.2024
4.
SLP
(C) No.
6605 of
2025
P1 – B Santosh
(Occupation –
Assistant Project
Manager, GMMCO
Limited)
P2- Dasari
Jagadeeswari Devi
(Occupation- Quality
Designer – I,
Electronic Arts
Games India Pvt.
Ltd.)
Hyderabad,
Telangana
State
B. Sresta 22.01.2024 22.05.2024
10. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel for the respondents, we find that ends of justice would be
served in the instant case by directing return of the above-mentioned
children to the “adoptive parents”. We also say so by invoking our
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in the peculiar facts of
the case.
11. This is in the interest of the children owing to the bonding between the
“adoptive parents” and the respective children. This is by following the
principle of the best interest of the child; principle of family responsibility;
principle of safety, positive measures, principle of Institutionalization
as a measure of last resort, principle of repatriation and restoration,
Dasari Anil Kumar & Another v.
The Child Welfare Project Director & Others
which are also enunciated as general principles in Section 3 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
12. For ease of reference, the aforesaid principles are extracted as under:
“3. General principles to be followed in administration of
Act.- The Central Government, the State Governments, the
Board, the Committee, or other agencies, as the case may
be, while implementing the provisions of this Act shall be
guided by the following fundamental principles, namely:
xxx
(iv) Principle of best interest: All decisions regarding the
child shall be based on the primary consideration that they
are in the best interest of the child and to help the child
to develop full potential.
(v) Principle of family responsibility : The primary
responsibility of care, nurture and protection of the child
shall be that of the biological family or adoptive or foster
parents, as the case may be.
(vi) Principle of safety: All measures shall be taken to
ensure that the child is safe and is not subjected to any
harm, abuse or maltreatment while in contact with the care
and protection system, and thereafter.
(vii) Positive measures: All resources are to be mobilised
including those of family and community, for promoting
the well-being, facilitating development of identity and
providing an inclusive and enabling environment, to reduce
vulnerabilities of children and the need for intervention
under this Act.
xxx
(xii) Principle of institutionalisation as a measure of last
resort: A child shall be placed in institutional care as a step
of last resort after making a reasonable inquiry.
(xiii) Principle of repatriation and restoration : Every child
in the juvenile justice system shall have the right to be
re-united with his family at the earliest and to be restored
to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he
784 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
was in, before coming under the purview of this Act, unless
such restoration and repatriation is not in his best interest.”
13. In the circumstances, we direct the respondent-authorities to handover
the custody of the children to the respective “adoptive parents” on
or before 14.08.2025 by 05:00 PM.
14. However, as a safeguard and in the best interest of the children,
we direct that the Member Secretary of the State Legal Services
Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services
Committee, within whose jurisdiction the “adoptive parents” reside
to seek reports on the welfare and progress of the child from the
respective “adoptive parents” on a quarterly basis starting from
November, 2025 onwards. The Member Secretary of the State Legal
Services Authority and/or the Member Secretary of the District Legal
Services Committee will also be at liberty to depute a Child Welfare
Expert to inspect the home where the child and the “adoptive parents”
reside. This is to ensure the welfare and progress of the children
who have been returned to the “adoptive parents”.
15. We again clarify that we have passed the aforesaid order in the
best interest of the children concerned in the instant case as they
have been with their adoptive parents for a few months upto three
years in these cases.
16. A copy of the said report may also be submitted to the jurisdictional
Child Welfare Committee.
17. It is needless to observe that the aforesaid order has been passed
not only in the best interest of the children concerned, but also by
invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to do complete
justice in the matter.
18. It is also needless to observe that this order would not come in
the way of any other proceeding that has been initiated by the
respondent(s)-authorities.
The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†