The Karnataka High Court has held that the silence of a biological father, who declined to take a clear position on the adoption of his minor son, can be treated as implied consent for the adoption process.
The ruling arose from a case in which a divorced mother, having remarried, approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) along with her present husband to formally adopt her 16-year-old son. Although a family court at the time of divorce had granted her permanent custody and guardianshipโrecording that the biological father had relinquished all rights to custody and visitationโthe State Adoption Resource Agency insisted on a written consent from the father before proceeding.
When the matter reached the High Court, the fatherโs counsel stated that he โwould not like to take a definite standโ on the adoption. Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol, acting as amicus curiae, and Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, representing CARA, submitted that the fatherโs refusal to clarify should be construed as implied consent, particularly since he had no legitimate grounds to oppose and the welfare of the child was paramount.
Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad concurred with these submissions, observing that failing to treat the fatherโs silence as consent would deprive the boyโwho expressed his desire to be adopted by his mother and stepfatherโof the complete benefits of being part of a family unit. The court ruled that the fatherโs silence amounted to consent for the adoption.
Accordingly, the High Court directed the State Adoption Resource Agency and the District Child Protection Unit to complete the adoption process. It further allowed the petitioners to use the courtโs order as proof of the biological fatherโs consent before all authorities.
