Supreme Court orders return of 2-year-old, says poverty alone does not prove child sale

The Supreme Court has ordered the return of a two-year-old boy to his adoptive parents in Telangana, holding that a biological mother’s financial difficulties in giving up her child cannot, by themselves, lead to a presumption that the child was sold.

A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale set aside a Telangana High Court order and directed Shishu Griha, Hyderabad, to hand over the child to the couple. The order, passed on Thursday, was issued while the state was investigating an alleged inter-state child trafficking network involving several other children.

The court, however, made it clear that its decision was confined to the child involved in the present case and would not affect investigations into other alleged trafficking cases.

Child was taken from couple in February 2025

The child was born in April 2024 to a single mother who was already raising a daughter. According to the adoptive parents, they had married in 2012 but had been unable to conceive for 12 years.

The couple said they met the biological mother in 2025, when she was expecting another child. They expressed their willingness to adopt the baby regardless of whether it was a boy or a girl.

As the mother was financially strained and unable to support two children, she agreed to give the child to the couple. An adoption deed was signed by her on April 30, 2024.

The state did not dispute that the woman was the biological mother of the child.

The couple subsequently cared for the boy, had him vaccinated regularly, celebrated his first birthday and enrolled him in the Aadhaar database. However, the Child Welfare Committee took custody of the child in February 2025.

The couple challenged the decision before the Telangana High Court, but their plea was rejected in June 2025. They then approached the Supreme Court.

Court says financial hardship cannot automatically mean sale

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances in which the biological mother gave up the child and the care provided by the couple after taking custody of him.

“We are inclined to hold that the factum of the child being given by way of adoption by the biological mother, due to her inability to care for the child because of financial constraints, would ipso facto (by the very fact) not lead to the presumption that she sold the child to the adoptive parents,” the bench said.

The judges also noted that the child had been properly cared for by the couple.

“The child was taken into custody by the adoptive parents and it is not a case where the child was not taken due care of by his adoptive parents,” the bench observed.

The court accordingly set aside the High Court's order and directed Shishu Griha in Hyderabad to return the child to the adoptive parents.

Telangana cites alleged inter-state trafficking network

The Telangana government, represented by advocate Sravan Kumar Karanam, opposed the child's release, arguing that the case could not be viewed merely as a private custody dispute.

The state told the Supreme Court that investigations into separate FIRs concerning alleged child sales had uncovered a wider network in which infants were allegedly procured and sold under the guise of adoption.

According to the state, agents, middlemen and trafficking channels were involved, with the network extending beyond Telangana to Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

The government also submitted that the adoptive parents had admitted paying ₹6 lakh to procure the child through a woman identified as “Vijayalaxmi”, who was alleged to be part of the trafficking chain.

The state therefore argued that releasing the child was not in his best interests while the investigation was continuing.

Supreme Court limits order to one child

The bench specifically clarified that its ruling did not address the allegations concerning other children.

Its order, the court said, was limited to the child before it and did not affect “the pending investigations concerning other children who are alleged to have been trafficked.”

The distinction is significant because the court was not asked to determine the merits of the wider trafficking investigation while deciding the custody of the two-year-old.

The Supreme Court's approach is also consistent with its broader child-welfare jurisprudence, under which the best interests and welfare of the child remain central to decisions involving custody and adoption. In a March 2026 judgment, the court noted that where biological parents cannot care for a child, an adoptive family can provide an alternative environment of care and protection.

High Court had questioned legality of adoption

The Telangana High Court had rejected the couple's plea partly because the adoption deed through which they claimed custody was not executed in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, or through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA).

The High Court had also taken note of the ongoing investigation and held that the child would be safe in the custody of the Child Welfare Committee under the framework of the 2015 Act.

The Supreme Court's decision therefore overturns the High Court's custody ruling in relation to this particular child while leaving the wider investigation untouched.

The statutory adoption framework places conditions on prospective adoptive parents and seeks to ensure that adoptions are carried out in the best interests of children. Supreme Court jurisprudence has also recognised requirements concerning the stability of prospective adoptive parents and the consent of spouses in cases involving married couples.

Couple said they had waited 12 years for a child

The adoptive parents told the court that they had been married for 12 years without having a child of their own.

They said the biological mother, who was raising a daughter and expecting another baby, was facing financial difficulties and therefore voluntarily agreed to give the newborn to them.

The adoption deed was signed on April 30, 2024, shortly after the child's birth.

The couple maintained that they had subsequently assumed responsibility for the boy and provided him with regular medical care and other necessities.

The Supreme Court, after considering these circumstances, ordered that the child be handed back to them while expressly preserving the state's authority to continue investigating the alleged trafficking network and cases involving other children.