CASE NAME: S. Balaji v. M.A. Mahaboobani
CASE NUMBER: C.M.A.(MD) No. 423 of 2026
COURT: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
DATE: 28 April 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Hon’ble Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan
FACTS
The appellant, S. Balaji, and his wife had been married since 2012 and had no child. They knew the respondent, M.A. Mahaboobani, for many years, and when her third daughter was born on 14 December 2023, she was struggling as a daily wage worker and had also lost her husband. According to the appellant, the respondent voluntarily agreed to give the child in adoption as she was struggling to provide the basic amenities to all three children. Thus the 3rd child had been brought up by the appellant and his wife from infancy. A petition was then filed before the Family Court, Madurai, seeking appointment of the appellant as the child’s legal guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The appellant filed petition in the Family Court to appoint themselves as the legal guardian of the minor child till she attains majority to legalize the adoption.The respondent supported the case and said she had no objection to the appellant being appointed guardian. But, the Family Court dismissed the petition, mainly because the appellant and his wife were Hindus while the child was born a Muslim, and because the court viewed them as “strangers” to a female child. The appellant challenged that decision before the High Court.
ISSUES
-
Whether the appellant could be appointed as guardian of the minor female child under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
-
Whether the child’s religion or the fact that the appellant and his wife were not her biological parents could prevent such appointment.
-
Whether the welfare of the child required interference with the Family Court’s order.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
1. Sections 4(2), 7, 8, 10, 17 and 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
2. Section 17 of the Act, which makes the welfare of the minor the central consideration.
Case law: Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, (2014) 4 SCC 1, Manual Theodore D’Souza v. Doreen Theresa D’Souza, 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 690
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
The appellant said the child had been under his and his wife’s care since birth and had already started identifying them as her parents. He argued that the respondent had given consent freely and that there was no legal bar under the Act to his appointment as guardian, even though the child was born to a Muslim mother and he belonged to the Hindu faith. He also pointed out that the whole point of the petition was to regularize a situation that had already existed in practice for years.
RESPONDENTS:
The respondent, appearing in person, supported the appeal. She stated that after losing her husband, she was unable to provide even basic care to all three children and therefore consciously allowed her third child to be brought up by the appellant and his wife. She told the Court that the child had been with them from birth, called them father and mother, and knew her as “aunty”. Two of her other children also confirmed that the child had always been raised by the appellant and his wife.
ANALYSIS
The High Court found that the Family Court had taken too narrow a view. It noted that Section 8(a) of the Act allows “the person desirous of being, or claiming to be, the guardian of the minor” to move the court, and Section 17 makes welfare the primary consideration. Religion is a factor, but not a disqualifying one by itself. The Bench also relied on Shabnam Hashmi to stress that adoption and child welfare cannot be viewed through a rigid religious lens alone. It referred to the concept of Kafala in Muslim law and to the Bombay High Court’s view in Manual Theodore D’Souza that, in the absence of a specific bar, a person who has taken a child in guardianship can seek recognition under the Act. What mattered here was the reality on the ground: that the child had been brought up by the appellant and his wife from infancy, the natural mother consented fully, and the child already treated them as her parents.
The court was also persuaded by the human side of the case. The respondent’s poverty, widowhood, and inability to care for all three children made the arrangement understandable. The judges made direct enquiries in open court and were satisfied that the consent was genuine, the child was settled with the appellant, and the welfare of the minor would be better served by recognizing that reality rather than unsettling it.
JUDGMENT
The High Court set aside the Family Court’s order dated 29.09.2025. It appointed S. Balaji as the legal guardian of the minor female child and allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal.
CONCLUSION
The High Court upheld the religion neutral character of the Act, and the court’s role is to use its parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the child’s best interests. This also highlights that guardianship law is child welfare centered, not label or religious centered. Once the Court was satisfied that the child had been raised by the appellant from birth, recognized him and his wife as her parents, and that the natural mother consented willingly, religion or formal biology could not stand in the way.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: ABIA MOHAMMED KABEER
Read the judgement copy here:
S. Balaji v. Mehaboobani
