Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 1 :
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ADOPTION PETITION NO.15 of 2020
In the matter of Section 9(4)(5) of the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,
1956.
AND
In the matter of Adoption of Master
Raghuvansh, Hindu, aged about 1 year
5 month-old.
1. Rahul Kailash Gupta
Aged: 34 years, Occ: business, Indian
inhabitant, R/at: A-1/22, Rajasthali
Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.
2. Mrs.Meenu Rahul Gupta
Aged: 30 years, Occ: Housewife, Indian
inhabitant, R/at: A-1/22, Rajasthali
Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi-110034. .. Petitioners
V e r s u s
Child Welfare Committee Mumbai
Suburban District,
Having office at:Chembur Children’s
Home Campus, V.N.Purav Marg, Opp.
Anushakti Nagar Bus Depot, Mankhurd,
Mumbai 400088. .. Respondent
Ld. Advocate Mr.S.P.Wakode for Petitioners.
Ld.Advocate Ms.Suzan Abraham for Respondent CWC Mumbai.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. M.M.UMAR
(Court Room No. 22)
DATE : 13th October, 2020.
-- 1 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 2 :
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner Rahul Kailash Gupta and his wife Meenu Rahul
Gupta have filed the present adoption petition under Section 9 (4)(5)
of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956, (hereinafter
referred as HAMA).
2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are Hindu, sound
mind and capable to take the child in adoption. Their marriage was
solemnized on 21/11/2011 as per the Hindu Vedic rites. There is no
child born out of the said wedlock. Therefore, they decided to take a
child in adoption. It is contended that one Mr.Pawan Sharma claiming
to be a member of NGO met to them at IVF Centre in Dwarka and
suggested them to go for adoption and the sister-in-law of the
petitioner no.2 told to the petitioner to take the help for adopting the
child. It is contended that in the month of May 2018, the petitioners
received information from the NGO person that one Hindu child is
available for adoption and after seeing to the child they felt attachment
with him so also, they decided to adopt that child which could bring
new energy to their life and last rites of the petitioners could be
performed as their son. Petitioners happily took the custody of the said
child on 23/5/2018. Thereafter, they celebrated home coming of the
child as its birthday, in presence of their friends and relatives. It is
asserted that Mr.Pawan Sharma assured to the petitioners that he will
comply all due process of law for the valid adoption of the child, but
when they tried to contact NGO person for adoption papers, he was not
responding to their calls and was not traceable. It is contended that the
petitioners raised the child, since 23/5/2018 till July 2019, in most
-- 2 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 3 :
caring manner as the child was small and he also started recognizing
petitioners as his parents and they have taken every recourse to
safeguard the child Raghuvansh and gave him healthy and comfortable
atmosphere in their home. They performed the naming ceremony of the
said child on 24/6/2018 and named him as “Raghuvansh”. They also
celebrated Mundan Ceremony on 11/5/2019 at Rajasthan and also
celebrated his first birthday on 24/5/2019 at India Gate, Delhi, they
invited their friends and relatives for the said celebration.
3. It is asserted that they have been arraigned as accused in the
crime bearing no.194/2019 dated 29/6/2019 registered with
Mankhurd Police Station under Section 370(4), 34 of IPC and 81 of
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the children) Act, 2000 and
further investigation was transferred to DCB CID UNIT VI, Mumbai
whereas the petitioners were arrested in Crime no.194/2019 and
subsequently released on bail and they handed over the custody of said
child to Police on 7/7/2019.
4. It is contended that after their release, they preferred an
application before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mumbai,
respondent for the custody of Master Raghuvansh on 22/7/2019, but
that application came to be rejected on 01/10/2019. It is contended
that there is no betterment or welfare of Master Raghuvansh as he is
being kept in an institution by the CWC. Master Raghuvansh is not
getting the education as he is not been admitted in any School.
It is contended that they have more affection and welfare of
Master Raghuvansh is with them and they will take all his care and for
better upbringing. Therefore, it is requested to give the said child
Master Raghuvansh in adoption and petition be allowed as prayed for.
-- 3 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 4 :
6. The CWC has resisted the said adoption petition by filing the
written statement on record. It is contended that CWC has no locus
standi under the HAMA and CWC is filing the Written Statement only
to assist the Court as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court passed
in Writ Petition filed by the petitioners. It is contended that adoption
petition is not maintainable as per Section 17 of HAMA which prohibits
payments in consideration of the adoption and the petitioner has
indulged in the Criminal Case registered by DCB CID Unit 6, Mumbai.
7. It is further contended by the CWC that as per order dated
13/8/2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, the High
Court pleased to observe that the said adoption petition will be filed
under the 2015 Act, which is the JJ Act, and under the jurisdiction of
said Act, CWC is assisting the Court. It is contended by the Petitioners
though carried out all the functions required to legitimize the custody
of the minor child in the eyes of the society but did not take a single
step to legitimize the custody of the child in the eyes of law. It is also
contended, the FIR is already registered against the petitioner, they
were arrested and subsequently, released on bail. It is contended they
are the accused in the crime of procuring a minor child through
illegitimate means from child traffickers and thus become accomplice in
the crime under the IPC and JJ Act. It is contended that they are not
the legitimate claimants of the custody of Master Raghuvansh and the
custody of Master Raghuvansh may not be granted to them. Lastly, it is
requested to dismiss the petition.
8. After considering rival contentions of the parties so also, after
hearing the argument of both the sides, the following points arise for
my consideration and my finding thereon for the reasons recorded are
-- 4 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 5 :
as under:
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the petitioners are competent to
adopt child Master Raghuvansh ?
In affirmative
2. What order and direction ? As per final order
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1 AND 2
9. These points are interconnected with each other therefore, I am
considering/taking them together for discussion, to avoid repetition.
10. In order to substantiate their claim the petitioners have filed their
evidence affidavit on record at Exhibit 4. So also they have filed the
original documents in support of their contention as per list of
documents at Exhibit 5. The petitioners have closed their evidence by
filing the evidence closing pursis at Exhibit 10. The CWC has also filed
the pursis at Exhibit 11 and informed to the court that it does not want
to lead oral evidence.
11. Uncontroverted and undisputed facts as seen from the pleadings
of the parties and evidence on records needs to be stated first for the
better appreciation of the points in controversy. It is not in dispute that
the petitioners are arraigned as accused in Crime No.55/2019 with
DCB CID Unit 6, Mumbai, for the violation of Section 370 IPC as well
as Section 80 and 81(Sale and Procurement of the child for any
purpose) of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is not in dispute that the
petitioners were arrested by the police and police took the custody of
-- 5 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 6 :
child (Master Raghuvansh) from the them. Consequently, the child was
before the CWC which then took the custody of said child and placed
him at Bal Anand, a Child Care Institution and also is registered
Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) pursuant to the provisions of Rule
59(4) of the Model Adoption Rules, 2016.
It is also seen that as per Section 38(i) of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection) Act, 2015, the Model Adoption Rules 2016 and
adoption regulations 2017, Committee requested for report of inquiry
of the DCB CID Unit 6 for declaring the child "legally free from
adoption". It appears that the biological parents of the child appeared
before the CWC and they executed the Surrender Deed before CWC for
giving the child in adoption to another family.
12. There is no dispute that as per the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court CWC obtained Social Investigation Report (SIR) of the petitioners
and it was received by the CWC through District Child Protection Unit
of Delhi which mentioned
“It has been observed that the child has been used as
commodity and is being brought and sold by the adults. It is
illegal practice of adoption which is not justified in the eyes of
law.”
13. The learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently
submitted that Petitioners are husband and wife. Their marriage took
place on 21/11/2011. There is child born out of the said wedlock. It is
submitted that petitioners decided to adopt a son. It is argued that one
Mr.Pawan Sharma from NGO contacted to them and shown the
photograph of a child and he assured to the petitioners that he will
complete all the formalities regarding the valid adoption of the said
-- 6 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 7 :
child. Consequently, the petitioners took the custody of the said child
on 23/5/2018 and named him Raghuvansh Gupta after performing the
naming ceremony. It is submitted that the petitioners tried their level
best to contact NGO person Mr.Pawan Sharma for completing the valid
adoption procedure so also for adoption papers but he was not
responding to their call and was not traceable.
14. It is submitted that after registration of the offence against the
petitioners and others, CWC called the report from DCB CID Unit 6 and
after following the appropriate procedure, CWC has declared the child
as free for adoption. It is submitted that there is no material on record
to show that the petitioners are not competent to take the said child
Master Raghuvansh in adoption. It is submitted that on the other hand
there is ample material on record to show that the petitioners have
taken the best care of the child Master Raghuvansh as parents and they
have taken all the necessary care of Master Raghuvansh since they have
taken him in their custody. It is submitted that depriving the child from
the family who is upbringing him as their own child and giving the
much more of what he is getting in an institutional care Bal Anand is
very unfortunate and the petitioners are emotionally paralysed. It is
also submitted that there is no point in keeping child Master
Raghuvansh in an institutional care and in custody with the respondent
CWC. Lastly, it is requested to safeguard the welfare and wellbeing of
Master Raghuvansh this petition be allowed. It is submitted that the
petitioners are ready to comply all the conditions which may be
imposed while allowing the petition.
15. Per contra, the learned advocate Ms.Suzan Abraham for CWC has
-- 7 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 8 :
submitted that as per the order of Hon'ble High Court dated
27/11/2019 CWC has appeared before this Court in the present matter
for assisting the Court in the adoption petition filed by the petitioners.
Ms. Abraham has submitted that the petitioner has filed the present
petition under the provisions of HAMA 1956, and not under the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2015. It is submitted that
CWC has no power or role to play under the provisions of HAMA but
CWC is assisting the Court to the best of its abilities, following the
directions of Hon'ble High Court Ms.Abraham has submitted that no
legal guardian is available in this petition and she has submitted only
the guardian and not other person is capable of giving the child in
adoption under HAMA. Lastly, it is submitted that the petition is not
maintainable. Ms.Abraham has heavily relied upon the case of Canara
Bank Relief and Welfare Vs. NIL ILR, 1990 KAR, 1339, wherein the
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has observed in para no.4 as under:
" (i) That for a Hindu child, whose parents are dead or have
completely and finally renounced the world or have
abandoned such child or have been declared by a Court of
competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind or where the
parentage of such child is not known, it is the guardian of
such child who can give the child in adoption to any person
including himself; (ii) that the guardian of such Hindu child
has to obtain previous permission of the Court before giving
the child to any person in adoption; (iii) that the guardian of
such Hindu child means a person having the care of the
person of the child or both of his person and property,
among others; (iv) that the Court from which permission to
give in adoption of such Hindu child has to be obtained, is
the City or Civil Court or a District Court within the local
limits of whose jurisdiction the child to be adopted
ordinarily resides;(v) that grant of permission by the Court
concerned to give a Hindu child in adoption must depend
upon the satisfaction to be obtained by it as to the welfare of
the child as provided for in Sub-section (5) thereof; and (vi)
that the restriction placed under Sub-section (4) in the
-- 8 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 9 :
matter of obtaining previous permission of the Court for
giving in adoption a Hindu child is only on a guardian and
not other persons capable of giving in adoption referred to in
Section 9 of the Act itself."
16. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the sides so
also I have gone carefully through case record and abovecited
decisions.
17. It is true that, as it was ever before, that no person can look after
the welfare of children in the betterment than parents. Destiny,
however, has its own ways to mould the cores of life of a person. The
present case concerns itself with the welfare of child Yatharth, who
appears to be deprived of cares and protection of the petitioners for the
reasons beyond their control.
18. The first question arises for the consideration of this court in this
case as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the
petition moved by the petitioner under the provisions of Section 9(4)
and (5) of the Hindu Adoption Act is maintainable and as to whether
the adoption of Master Master Raghuvansh under HAMA in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case is legally
permissible.
19. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that it is a
well settled position of law that both the HAMA and JJ Act are Central
inactments and there is absolutely no repugnancy between the two
legislations. It is submitted that the parliament has in its wisdom
specifically included Section 56 (3) into JJ Act 2015, which
substantiates that the adoption carried out under HAMA are saved and
-- 9 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 10 :
that HAMA is not repugnant with the JJ Act.
20. It is submitted that the CWC was made party/respondent, as the
custody of child Master Raghuvansh, was with CWC and the CWC
never took any objection before any Court with regard to its locus. It is
submitted that when CWC has the custody of the child, it is very well
falls within the definition of “guardian” under Section 9(4) of HAMA
and can have the capacity to give the child in adoption. In support of
his contention the learned advocate for the petitioners has heavily
relied upon the decision of Sohanlal Vs. Additional Sessions Court No.9
and others, AIR 2015 ALL 33, wherein in para no.23,24,and 25 the
Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:
"
23. Section 9 of the Hindu Adoptions Act, apart from
permitting the father and the mother, also permits the
guardian of a child to give the child in adoption. Section 9 as
it existed prior to its amendment in 1962 by the
Parliamentary Act No.45 of 1962 though permitted the
guardian of a child to give him/her in adoption with the
previous permission of the court, however, such adoption was
permissible only in case the parents were dead or had
completely and finally renounced the world or had been
declared by a court to be of unsound mind. The provision, as
it existed prior to 1962, thus, did not permit an abandoned
child to be given in adoption by a guardian. It is also
noticeable that the definition of “guardian” was also confined
to mean only a testamentary guardian or a guardian
appointed or declared by a court.
24. Prior to passing of Act No.45 of 1962 by the
Parliament , Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions Act stood as
under:--
“Where both the father and the mother are dead or have
completely and finally renounced the world or have been
declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be of
unsound mind, the guardian of child (whether a testamentary
guardian or a guardian appointed or declared by a court)
-- 10 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 11 :
may give the child in adoption with the previous permission
of the court.”
25. Since the provisions relating to adoption of an orphan
were not very satisfactory for the reason that the Act did not
include the abandoned children to qualify for being given in
adoption and the definition of “guardian” was also very
narrow, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance
(Amendment)Act (Act No.45 of 1962) was enacted by the
Parliament with the object of bringing the persons having the
care and custody of the child within the meaning of
“guardian” by suitably amending Section 9(4) of the Principal
Act and also for providing that an abandoned child or a child
whose parentage is not known or whose religion cannot be
ascertained and who is brought up as a Hindu shall be
regarded as a Hindu by religion. The Statement of Objects
and Reasons of Act No.45 of 1962 enacted by the Parliament
for amending Section 9(4)of the Principal Act is extracted
below:-
“Amending Act of 1962 – “Under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 the guardian of a child has been given
the power to give the child in adoption with the previous
permission of the Court. But this power can be exercised only
by a testamentary guardian or a guardian appointed or
declared by the Court as specified in Section 9(4) of the Act.
A person having the care and custody of a child has, however,
no power to give the child in adoption although for all
practical purposes he is the guardian of the child. Then again,
there is no provision in the Act authorising the adoption of a
child abandoned by both of his parents or of a child whose
parentage is not known. Children are sometimes abandoned
by their parents for fear of social opprobrium, for reasons of
poverty and for other reasons. If these children could be given
in adoption, they might grow up in congenial home
atmosphere as good citizens. These abandoned children are
very often brought up in founding homes or other children’s
institutions. The manager of such homes or institutions
having the care and custody of these children is, for all
practical purposes, their guardian and there is no reason why
he should not have the power to give the child in adoption
with the permission of the Court like the testamentary
guardian or the guardian appointed or declared by the Court.
It is therefore, considered that this lacuna in the law should
-- 11 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 12 :
be removed by suitably amending section 9(4) of the Act so
as to bring a person having the care and custody of the child
within the meaning of ‘guardian’. “--Gazette of India, 1962, Pt
II, Sec.2, Extra., page 475.”
21. I have duly considered the above submissions of both the sides,
so also I have gone carefully through the case record. It is important to
mention here that on 27/11/2019 the Hon'ble High Court pleased to
pass the following order:
"
6. Petitioners have already initiated the proceedings for
adoption and as the child is with CWC, the concerned CWC
is joined as respondent therein. It is brought to our notice
that those proceedings cannot continue till specialized
adoption agency under the CWC declares the child free for
adoption after following appropriate procedure.
7. We direct the CWC to appear before the City Civil
Court, Mumbai and assist that court in the matter. The court
shall within one week from today, make appropriate
reference to the Specialized Adoption Agency under the
CWC for this purpose.
8. The specialized adoption agency shall complete the
necessary exercise of obtaining Social investigation Report
(SIR) in relation to parents from the respective areas at the
earliest and preferably within six weeks from today.
9. In case of petitions who hail from Delhi the CWC
having jurisdiction there shall assist the CWC, Mumbai in
obtaining that report within the same time. Petitioner shall
also assist the CWC and specialized adoption agency in the
matter of obtaining the SIR.
10. The reports thereafter shall be produced in the City
Civil Court in the adoption proceedings. That court shall
therefore complete the proceedings in accordance with law
at the earliest and in any case within next three months from
the receipt of the report."
22. The Hon'ble High Court also directed to CWC to appear before
this Court and assist the Court in expeditious disposal of the abovesaid
adoption petitions and CWC appeared before this Court .
-- 12 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 13 :
23. In the order dated 13/8/2020 the Hon'ble High Court has
observed in para no.11 as under:
“ 11. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned Counsel
for CWC that since under Section 58 of the Act, 2015, CWC has no role
in the proceedings, the CWC cannot be called upon to assist the Court.
The submission loses sight of the fact that CWC is not an adversary
party in the proceedings for adoption. The Court had noted that the
Specialized Adoption Agency was working under CWC. Evidently, this
Court was of the view that the presence of the CWC before the Court
would facilitate the expeditious disposal of the adoption proceedings.
In the circumstances, the City Civil Court can proceed to decide the
substantive adoption proceedings without feeling constrained by the
procedural propriety of the impeadment of CWC as a party to the said
proceedings.”
24. There is no dispute that in present petition the biological parents
of the said child appeared before the CWC and they executed the
Surrender Deed before the CWC, proclaiming therewith to surrender
the child for giving in adoption to any other family. It is important to
mention here that they never reclaim the custody of said surrendered
child from CWC/Bal Anand Specialised Adoption Agency, till date.
25. It appears to me that there is no legal force in the contentions of
CWC that it has no locus in the petitions filed under HAMA because
admittedly the child Master Raghuvansh is in the custody of Specialized
Adoption Agency Bal Anand and that agency is working under CWC
and biological parents of the child have surrendered the child to CWC
for giving in adoption to another family.
26. It is important to mention here that in principal HAMA the
statement of the objects and reasons of Amending Act,1962, clearly
-- 13 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 14 :
shows the object of permitting abundant children, brought up in
foundation homes and all other children in institutions to be given in
adoption as the management of the such home and institutions having
the care and custody of such children, for all practical purposes, is their
“guardian” and hence the Parliament in its wisdom thought it is
appropriate to provide for giving a child in adoption by management of
such homes or institutions being his/her guardian, of course with the
permission of the Court. In other words, it can be said that by
amending Section 9(4) of the HAMA, in the matter of giving an
orphaned or abandoned children in the care and custody of the
institutions, the management of care and protection homes where such
children reside is brought at par with the testamentary guarding or the
guardian appointed or declared by the Court by inserting explanation
(ia) to Section 9(4) of the principal Act, the anomaly, is existed in law,
thus, was sought to be removed by the parliament. CWC in the facts
and circumstances of the case cannot say that though the child in their
custody and care, after surrender deed executed by the parents but it
cannot give the child in adoption.
27. Admittedly, the child is at Bal Anand under the care and
protection of CWC as stated above. Since the biological parents of the
said child have executed the surrender deed to CWC and they have not
reclaimed the surrendered child within 60 days from the date of
surrender, as per Section 35 r/w. 3 of the JJ Act and Regulation 6(12)
of the Adoption Regulation. In view of the matter, in my considered
opinion now the CWC is the guardian and became capable of giving the
child Raghuvansh in adoption, of course with the previous permission
of the Court, which should be satisfied that the adoption is for the
-- 14 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 15 :
welfare of the child.
28. There is enough material on record to conclude that the welfare
of the child Master Raghuvansh can be secured, if he is permitted to be
given in adoption to the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners are
financially, physically, and medically are fit and capable to adopt the
child. The capability of the petitioners to adopt the child is not disputed
by the CWC at all. There is no evidence on record to show that the
claim of petitioners regarding the adoption and custody of said Master
Raghuvansh is made with any ulterior motive or with bad intention.
29. It is pertinent to mention here that I have interviewed the
petitioners in Chamber and I have gone through their evidence on
record. I prima facie find that the petitioners are highly motivated and
have a strong attachment to the child Master Raghuvansh who was in
their custody. The petitioners have stated in one voice that they have a
lot of love and affection for the child and they have treated the child as
their own. They have stated before me that they are financially sound
and they have their place of residence in Delhi and are in a position to
take care of all the needs of the child Master Raghuvansh and would
ensure proper education imparted to him.
30. It is true that an offence under Section 370(4), 34 IPC and 81 of
Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 is registered against the petitioners and
others. The Hon’ble High Court has observed in its order dated
27/11/2019 in Writ Petition No.4783/2019, which reads as under:
"After hearing the respective Counsel, we are of the view that
the pendency of FIR No.55 of 2019 with DCB CID Unit No.6
Mumbai, by itself shall not be used to deny the adoption to
-- 15 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 16 :
petitioners. "
31. Considering the fact that the petitioners and others have already
filed the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court for quashing of
FIR and the Hon'ble High Court has observed as above. Therefore, this
Court has not taken into consideration the said FIR , while deciding this
Adoption Petition. It is for the concerned Criminal Court where the
chargesheet, if filed by the DCB CID Unit 6 to decide the said Criminal
case on its own merits and evidence without influence to itself by the
observations made by this Court in this adoption petition, as it has
nothing to do with that Criminal proceeding against the petitioners and
this Court has not used the material of that Criminal case, while
deciding this adoption petition as per the direction of Hon’ble High
Court.
It is important to mention here that CWC has not adduced any
evidence against the petitioners to show that they are not entitled to
claim the custody of child Master Raghuvansh or that they are unfit.
32. In short, considering the Special investigating report submitted
by CWC before the Court, in relation to the parents of the child and
that there is no antecedents against the petitioners regarding the
import, export, buy or sale or accepts or receives or detains any child.
As per the CWC, the child is free for adoption. Thus, keeping the
welfare of child Master Raghuvansh in mind which must be the
paramount consideration, in my opinion it is just and necessary to
permit the petitioners to take the custody of child Master Raghuvansh,
as it will be in the best interest of child Master Raghuvansh to restore
him to the petitioners.
-- 16 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 17 :
Be that as it may, in view of the above discussion, in my opinion
the petitioners have proved that their claim regarding the adoption and
custody of child Master Raghuvansh is legal and bonafide. All the
requisites of a valid adoption, as per the law, have been fulfilled. Thus,
the Petition needs to be allowed for the welfare and wellbeing of the
child Master Raghuvansh. In the result, I answer point no.1 and 2
accordingly and pass following order:
O R D E R
1. Adoption Petition No.15/2020 is allowed.
2. It is declared that the Petitioner No.1 Rahul Kailash Gupta and
Petitioner No.2 Mrs.Meenu Rahul Gupta are the adoptive father and
mother respectively of the minor male child Raghuvansh and
henceforth child Raghuvansh is the son of Petitioner No.1 and 2.
3. The concerned Municipal authorities are directed to issue birth
certificate of Master Raghuvansh who was born on 16/5/2018 showing
the name of Petitioner No.1 Mr. Rahul Kailash Gupta as his father and
Petitioner No.2 Mrs.Meenu Rahul Gupta as his mother.
4. The petitioners are permitted to apply to the passport authorities
and all the Government/Semi Government authorities in respect of
issuance of passport, PAN Card, Aadhar Card and other necessary
documents in the name of Master Raghuvansh Rahul Gupta
5. The petitioners are directed not to give minor Master
Raghuvansh in adoption to any other person without previous
permission of this Court.
6. The adoptive parents i.e. Petitioners are permitted to move
adoptive child Master Raghuvansh out of the jurisdiction of this Court.
7. The Petitioners are directed to file an undertaking before the
Court supporting with an afidavit, that they will produce minor Master
Raghuvansh as and when required by this Court or by the Criminal
Court, where the Criminal proceeding is pending, without fail.
-- 17 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 18 :
8. The respondents Child Welfare Committee is directed to
handover the custody of minor child Master Raghuvansh to the
Petitioners, after appeal period is over, after completing all the requisite
formalities so also on submitting of Covid-19 Test negative Report by
the Petitioners.
9. The police officer in charge of the Social Service Cell, regularly
depute a woman constable to the house of the petitioners at Delhi, only
with a view to a certain whether proper care of minor child Master
Raghuvansh is being taken by the Petitioners and inform to the Child
Welfare Committee, Mumbai, once in 6 months, till the concerned
Criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioners.
10. Adoption Petition No.15/2020 is thus disposed of accordingly.
Date : 13.10.2020 (M.M.UMAR)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 13.10.2020
Typed on : 13.10.2020
Signed by HHJ. : 16.10.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
17.10.2020 1.30 p.m. Mrs. Jyoti Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri MM Umar (CR No.22)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
13.10.2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 16.10.2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 17.10.2020
-- 18 of 19 --
Adopt.Pet.No.15/2020 Judgment : 19 :
-- 19 of 19 --