The Calcutta High Court has directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) to restore the custody of a three-year-old boy to his adoptive parents, holding that the committee’s decision to take away the child was not in accordance with law since he was neither an orphan nor abandoned and did not fall within the category of children in need of care and protection.
Justice Krishna Rao passed the order on September 17 while hearing a petition filed by the adoptive parents, who approached the court after the CWC took custody of the child in February 2026 over non-compliance with the statutory adoption procedure.
The court directed the CWC to hand over the child to the petitioners on or before September 18 at 4 pm. It also ordered quarterly monitoring of the child’s welfare and progress by the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee, South 24 Parganas, beginning in December 2026.
CWC Had No Power To Deal With Child In These Circumstances
The High Court acknowledged that the biological parents had given the child in adoption without following the prescribed legal procedure. It also noted that a notarised adoption deed by itself could not give the petitioners a right to retain custody under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
At the same time, the court found that the CWC could not exercise its powers over a child who was neither orphaned nor abandoned and did not qualify as a child in need of care and protection.
The court noted that the child had been handed over by his biological parents to the petitioners and had remained in their care and custody thereafter. It concluded that the CWC’s action in taking custody of the child from the adoptive parents was not in accordance with law.
Child Was Handed Over By Biological Parents In 2023
The boy was born prematurely on February 24, 2023, and was admitted to the Special Newborn Care Unit immediately after birth. He was discharged from the hospital on March 21, 2023.
According to the petitioners, the biological parents were unable to care for the child and voluntarily handed him over to them on the day of his discharge. Both sets of parents subsequently signed an adoption deed on April 3, 2023. Though the deed was not registered, it was notarised.
The adoptive parents said the boy remained in their care and custody and was raised by them as their own child.
The dispute arose when they sought a birth certificate to admit the child to school. The hospital authorities advised them to approach the CWC to complete the adoption process before obtaining the certificate.
When the adoptive parents appeared before the CWC on February 18, 2026, and disclosed the circumstances surrounding the adoption, the committee took custody of the child. He remained with the CWC thereafter.
Adoptive Parents Said Child Was Never Unsafe In Their Care
Advocate Shamik Chatterjee, representing the petitioners, argued that there was no allegation that the child had suffered abuse, neglect, exploitation, trafficking, mistreatment, abandonment or physical, emotional or psychological harm while living with them.
The petitioners maintained that they had approached the CWC to regularise the necessary formalities so that the child could receive proper education. Instead of guiding them through the process, they argued, the committee removed the child from their custody without taking steps to complete the adoption process.
Their counsel submitted that an irregularity in the adoption procedure did not, by itself, establish that the child was unsafe or that removing him from an established caregiving environment was necessary.
State Cited Mandatory Adoption Procedure
Advocate Swagata Datta, appearing for the state, argued that adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the applicable adoption regulations must be carried out strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure.
The state contended that adoption could be processed only through a recognised specialised adoption agency after the CWC declared the child legally free for adoption. A private arrangement or notarised adoption deed executed outside the statutory framework, it submitted, had no legal recognition.
Court Orders Restoration Of Custody And Quarterly Welfare Reports
While recognising that the statutory adoption procedure had not been followed, the High Court held that the circumstances justified restoration of the child’s custody to the petitioners.
The court said that, for the ends of justice, the CWC should return the child to the adoptive parents and ordered the committee to complete the handover by 4 pm on September 18.
As a safeguard for the child’s best interests, the court directed the Member Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, to obtain reports from the adoptive parents on the child’s welfare and progress every three months, beginning in December 2026.
