Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court has observed that a person cannot claim a right to guardianship solely on the basis of the adoption ceremony of a child without establishing that the adoption is legally valid.A division bench comprising Justices DK Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by a Bengaluru resident.On Nov 24 last year, a family court in Bengaluru had rejected his adoption application filed under Guardian and Wards Act, forcing him to approach the high court.The appellant had in Aug 2024 married a woman, who is the biological mother of the minor boy involved in the litigation. According to the man, an adoption ceremony was also held along with their marriage and thus he got the status of adoptive father of the boy.However, after living with him for nearly one year, in July 2025, the woman left his home along with her son. He then approached the family court seeking visitation rights every day for three hours in the play area of his apartment complex. He cited the adoption ceremony, co-habitation for nearly 11 months and asserted that he was entitled to claim the status of an adoptive father and that he should be treated as a guardian. The mother of the child opposed his claim.However, after several rounds of hearing, the family court rejected his request pointing out that he was an adoptive father and his claim could not override the rights of the boy’s natural mother.The division bench of the high court observed that the family court was right in rejecting the application.There is no pleading or material placed by the petitioner to show that the biological mother is unfit to have the guardianship of the child. Therefore, the mere assertion that the petitioner has a close relationship with the minor or that he had undertaken certain responsibilities during the period when the parties lived together cannot, by itself, overcome the statutory bar under the Act, the division bench noted.Even if it is accepted that an adoption ceremony was performed, the legal validity and consequence of that event cannot be determined merely on the basis of such an assertion, the bench further added.However, the bench also clarified that that the order is confined to the maintainability of the proceedings as framed and shall not be understood as expressing any final opinion on the validity or otherwise of the alleged adoption, should that question arise for consideration before a competent forum.
