Telangana High Court Firmly Rejects Couple's Plea for Trafficked Child
The Telangana High Court has delivered a significant judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a couple seeking the return of a two-year-old girl they had adopted through illegal means. While acknowledging that the child had been well cared for and had developed a strong bond with the petitioners over the last two years, the court unequivocally stated that informal adoption procedures cannot be appreciated or approved under any circumstances.
Court's Stance on Illegal Adoption and Child Trafficking
In her judgment dated January 28, Justice T Madhavi Devi ruled that validating such adoptions would effectively prescribe illegal practices and encourage child trafficking across the country. The court identified the case as a clear instance of child trafficking, noting that the child was procured through an intermediary, Nakka Yadagiri, who has been booked by police for involvement in trafficking multiple children.
The petitioners, Muthineni Venakanna and his wife, who have been unable to have biological children, had applied for legal adoption through proper channels but faced prolonged delays. In May 2023, they learned of a one-month-old girl available for adoption via Yadagiri and proceeded with the adoption illegally, caring for the child since then.
Legal Proceedings and Government's Position
Authorities detained the child in June 2025 and placed her in a children's home in Nalgonda town, adding the couple's names to the FIR. The petitioners argued that the separation caused the child severe mental distress and pleaded for her return to pursue legal adoption.
The Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare emphasized that Yadagiri's involvement in trafficking necessitated strict adherence to established procedures through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). The court supported this view, stating that the couple must await their turn under CARA guidelines rather than bypassing legal protocols.
Rejection of Precedent and Final Ruling
The court also rejected the petitioners' reliance on a Supreme Court case (Dasari Anil Kumar), clarifying that the earlier decision was made under Article 142 of the Constitution and should not be treated as a precedent for other cases. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the child will remain in government care, with the court declining to grant any relief to the couple.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to combating child trafficking and upholding legal adoption frameworks, even in emotionally charged situations where bonds have formed between children and caregivers.
