Adoption home ordered to return 10-month-old boy to minor mother

Revathi (name changed) fell in love with Balamurugan (23) and eloped, and delivered a boy child about 10 months ago. As she was a minor, Balamurugan was arrested under POCSO Act and lodged at Thoothukudi district prison. The girl sent to the home attached to the Child Welfare Committee, while the infant was in the custody of Saranalayam Adoption Centre in Alankulam, Tirunelveli. 

Following this, their parents moved separate habeas corpus petitions seeking return of their children. They assured the court that they were ready to arrange the marriage after Revathi became a major, and expressed willingness to bring up the grandchild. 

However, Thoothukudi Child Welfare Committee chairperson objecting to such custody, stating that the grandparents’ petition could not be entertained and the girl, being minor, was not eligible to file petition seeking custody of the child. Based on the surrender deed given by the mother, the child was declared as legally free for adoption. 

The petitioners contended that the implication of the surrender was not explained to the minor girl and that the father’s consent was not taken. The youth and the girl had married, and therefore the consent of the father should have been taken, they added. 

The division bench comprising Justice S Vimala and Justice T Krishnavalli noted that the case originated with a prayer by the mother of the 15-year-old to get back her daughter. But in the course of hearing, it was turned into the child seeking restoration of custody of her 10-monthold son. Adoption was laudable as it provided a family to a child, but only to a child who has no family, pointed out the court, adding: “Here is a case where both parents, along with the grandparents, are willing to take care of the child.” 

When the marriage is valid, the mother being a minor cannot be a disqualification to have the custody of the child, the bench said. 

The consent that the minor girl gave was not an informed one and thus invalid, the bench said. “The advantages of nurturing the child by the biological mother cannot be underestimated,” it added, cancelling the surrender deed and entrusting the custody of the child, Darwin, to the mother.