Ahmedabad: A city civil court has turned down a teenager’s plea to restore his biological father’s name in official records, ruling that a valid adoption cannot be undone—even if the child and adoptive father both agree.The case traces back to 2015, when the boy’s widowed mother remarried a man who was a widower himself and had a son. Years later, in 2022, an adoption deed was executed and registered after the adoptive father assured the family he would treat the child well. A civil court order followed, enabling a change in the teenager’s name by replacing his biological father’s name with the adoptive father’s name across documents.Within eight months, the child reportedly began feeling he was being treated differently than his stepbrother. Seeking to distance himself from the adoptive father, the mother moved the court to reverse the earlier change—restoring the biological father’s name and deleting the adoptive father’s name from the child’s documents.In her application, the mother alleged that her husband’s conduct caused emotional distress and a sense of inferiority in her son, who is now 19. She told the court she feared for his future and argued the change would be in the “welfare” of her child. The adoptive father also consented to the removal of his name.The court, however, held that consent could not override the law. It acknowledged the mother’s concern, observing that her grievance about the child’s welfare and emotional well-being “is undoubtedly a matter which cannot be ignored… The question is whether such grievance provides a legally permissible basis for cancelling a valid adoption through the present application”.Relying on Section 15 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the judge noted that once an adoption is validly made, it cannot be cancelled by adoptive parents or any other person, and an adopted child cannot renounce that status.The court found no material suggesting the adoption was invalid from the start—such as fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or non-compliance with statutory requirements—and ruled that later developments could not be used to undo it.“The subsequent grievance regarding the conduct of the opponent does not provide a ground for cancellation of a valid adoption, particularly in view of the express provision contained in Section 15 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Consequently, the present application cannot be allowed in the manner prayed for. However, it is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the applicant regarding the conduct of the opponent towards the child nor on any other substantive right which may be available to the applicant or the child under law.”
