Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act | Age of Child to be reckoned on Date of Filing, not Date of Order, when Delay is attributable to Court, says HC

In a significant ruling touching the intersection of parental rights, child welfare, and judicial accountability, the Calcutta High Court stepped in to rescue an adoption petition that a District Court had buried under the weight of its own procedural delays, raising a pointed question about whether a citizen's fundamental right can be extinguished simply because the system moved too slowly.

The controversy began when a petitioner filed an adoption application on April 18, 2022, under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking to adopt a boy who was then 13 years and 11 months old, well within the statutory ceiling of 15 years prescribed under Section 10 of HAMA. The case was assigned to the District Judge, Nadia, where it sat untouched long enough for the child to cross the 15-year threshold.

When the District Judge finally took up the matter, he dismissed the application on April 23, 2024, citing the age bar, acknowledging in the same breath that the delay was a procedural lapse of the court itself, yet concluding that the statutory requirement could not be bent. The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court, arguing that punishing an applicant for a court's own inaction struck at the very root of natural justice.

Justice Shampa Dutt found the District Judge's reasoning fundamentally untenable. Drawing on CARA guidelines, which fix the age eligibility of a child on the date of registration with the adoption agency, not the date of the Court's decree, the Court held that the same principle must govern HAMA adoptions when the delay is entirely attributable to the judicial process. The bench observed pointedly that "a fundamental right of a person shall be affected, if an order is passed against him, even though he has been diligent in claiming that right and it is the delay in procedure of the Court, which if accepted shall extinguish an important right of a person." 

Applying this reasoning, the Court held the age of the child must be assessed as of the date of filing, 13 years 11 months, rendering the petition fully maintainable. The impugned order was set aside, the adoption case restored to the District Court at Nadia, and the trial court directed to dispose of the matter within three months.

Case Title: Jagannath Guha Vs. Manju Guha (Paul) and Anr.

Case No.: C.O. 3218 of 2024

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Satyam Mukherjee, Adv. Debarshi Brahma, Adv. Saibal Rakshit

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Sahili Dey, Adv. Jayanta Samanta, Adv. Tapas Ballav Mandal

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com