Trushali
- 14 May 2026
Adopted woman moves Karnataka High Court seeking details of biological parents
5 min readBengaluruUpdated: Apr 28, 2026 10:41 AM IST
Anita Wiesendt has petitioned the Karnataka High Court, seeking the disclosure of her biological parents’ identities from St. Martha’s Hospital, citing a “lifelong struggle with identity.”
Nearly 48 years after she was adopted from Bengaluru’s St Martha’s Hospital as an infant and taken to Germany by a German couple, Anita Wiesendt has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking directions to the hospital to disclose the identities of her biological parents.
On Saturday, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued a notice to St Martha’s Hospital and directed it to file its reply to the petition.
Anita, 47, has said she is seeking information about her biological parents solely to trace her origins and find emotional closure to a lifelong struggle with identity and questions of parentage.
“The request specifically sought, inter alia, information and documents concerning the identity and particulars of her biological parents, a copy of the surrender deed, and all related adoption records. These communications were made in good faith, solely with the objective of tracing her origins and obtaining emotional closure to a lifelong struggle with identity and parentage,” Anita has said in the petition filed in January this year.
From Bengaluru to Germany
Anita was born on March 3, 1978. It is reported that her mother died on March 26, 1978. Her father, unable to care for her due to severe financial hardship, is said to have left her at St Martha’s Hospital, requesting that she be given up for adoption to secure her long-term well-being.
According to her petition, hospital authorities, on receiving the infant, named her Anita and cared for her for about five months before she was later adopted by Lutz Joachim Wiesendt and Sigrid Wiesendt.
The couple took Anita to Germany after a court in Bengaluru allowed their petition for guardianship and custody under Sections 7, 10, and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act. A Sridhar, then the medical officer at St Martha’s Hospital, affirmed the adoption on behalf of the hospital.
When she was leaving, Anita received farewell notes from Late Mother Virginia, Sabina P N, and Mariamma Mathew, the hospital staff who had cared for her.
A visit to St Martha’s Hospital
Anita, along with her husband, visited the hospital in 2024 seeking information about her biological parents. The mother of two children also sent emails and legal notices, but did not receive a substantive response. According to her, the hospital only issued vague replies and did not provide the details she sought.
In 2024 and 2025, her advocate Advocate Karpagam Mathangi visited St Martha’s Hospital multiple times to inspect and obtain the relevant adoption and surrender records, but the hospital authorities declined to furnish them or even allow access.
In her petition, Anita has claimed the hospital failed to acknowledge or respond properly.
She also claimed that during her adoption, the Indian Council of Social Welfare was an active social-welfare body entrusted with the responsibility of counselling biological parents, verifying consent, and preserving adoption records. However, it failed to maintain or disclose documents relating to her biological parents.
Anita has also alleged that the Council not only violated its institutional obligation but also the statutory mandate now embodied in Regulation 47 of the Adoption Regulation 2022, issued under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which recognises the right of anyone who has been adopted to obtain information about their origins and obliged all agencies to facilitate.
A police complaint
To support her plea, the petition relies on the Supreme Court judgment in Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244, which held that an adopted child, upon attaining maturity, has the right to trace their roots and know the identity of their biological parents.
After the hospital failed to respond to her queries, she even filed a complaint with the Bengaluru police commissioner on August 20, 2025, seeking registration of a case against the hospital and its officials who acted as sureties in the adoption. She sought that the police investigate and take appropriate action, as she believed that her adoption was conducted allegedly without the consent of her biological parents, and documents were allegedly fabricated or concealed.
On April 25, the government advocate, on instructions, placed on record a report stating that the Ulsoor Gate Police Station had conducted an inquiry. The authorities informed that records are retained for only 5 years and then destroyed; therefore, no relevant information is currently available.