An Indian court has ruled that an Australian woman has no right over her 13-year-old daughter after giving her away in adoption to her second husband.
The girl was born from her mother's first marriage. The mother later divorced the natural father of the girl and married another man.
The court ruling came on a petition filed by the woman on behalf of her daughter living with the woman’s second husband in India. Since the woman wanted to bring her daughter to Australia, she applied for her visa.
However, the Australian High Commission in Delhi raised an objection as the visa applicant was still under the age of 18 and her visa form did not have the signature of the “non-accompanying adoptive father”.
The lawyer representing the mother told the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh that the girl’s adoptive father refused to sign the visa form and cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) giving the children the right to live with their parents.
The Government of India is not a signatory to the said convention but has ratified it.
The lawyer sought the court’s direction for the Australian High Commission to not impress on seeking the father’s signature on the girl’s visa application.
However, the court, citing the adoption law in India, said a child’s ties to their family of the birth end with their adoption and they are deemed children of their adoptive parents.
“For all intents and purposes, the petitioner is the daughter of [her] adoptive father [with effect from] the date of adoption and [the mother] has become stranger to her,” said Justice RK Jain.
Justice Jain said the mother, in view of the law, could not apply for the girl’s visa to take her to Australia with the consent of her father.
“The child cannot be removed by a stranger from the lawful guardianship without the permission of the said guardian. Thus, in my considered opinion, the objection raised by the Australian High Commission asking for NOC from the adoptive father is very well in place and the provisions of UNCRC relied upon by the petitioner would not apply,” Justice Jain further said.
He said there was no merit in the petition and it was dismissed without cost.
