Karnataka HC steps in to help couple seeking to adopt child

The High Court of Karnataka has directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to consider a Shivamogga couple’s application for adopting a child they have been taking care of since 2016. 

“This court is of the opinion that the paramount interest of the child’s welfare, care and protection would be secured in the hands of the petitioners who have been looking after the child as their own child. Maybe, for procedural and legal oversight, they could not reach the committee as mandated under Rules 18 and 19 of the Model Rules,” Justice DK Singh ruled, while disposing of the petition filed by the
couple. 

Justice Singh directed the couple to produce the child before the CWC in Bengaluru on March 10, 2026. He also directed the committee to proceed with the inquiry in terms of the rules and process the adoption application soon after completion of the inquiry. 

“It is needless to say that the child should remain in the custody of the petitioners during the inquiry to be conducted by the CWC,” the court said. 

During a visit to Sri Gavisiddeshwara Swami Mutt on June 10, 2016, the couple found a three-day-old infant abandoned by its mother. On the swami’s advice, they took the child to Shivamogga and enrolled it to a pre-school there. 

On July 20, 2017, the CWC issued a notice to the couple regarding the legality of the custody. Subsequently, on February 6, 2020, it also issued a public notice, stating that anyone claiming to be the child’s parents or heir should contact the committee. It also took custody of the child. 

Challenging these proceedings, the couple approached the high court and contended that nobody had come forward claiming to be the child’s parents and that the whereabouts of the parents or the mother remained
unknown. 

In an interim order on October 8, 2021, the court directed the CWC to hand over the child’s custody to the petitioners. The child has been in their custody since. The child, now aged around 9 years, is in
class 4. 

The couple informed the court that their own child, who was physically disabled, had died at the age of 12 while a girl child died within four months of birth. They noted that taking the child away from them would not only be against the paramount interest of the child but also
inhuman.