Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 1 :
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
ADOPTION PETITION NO.5 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
Yathartha, Hindu, aged about 2 years 10
month old.
1. Abhinav Gopal Krishan Aggarwal
Aged: 38 years
2. Mrs.Rukmini Abhinav Aggarwal
Adult Indian Inhabitant Age : years
Both residing at
Mumbai 400070. .. 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. Siddharth Jagushte for Petitioners.
Ld.Advocate Ms.Suzan Abraham for Respondent CWC Mumbai.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. M.M.UMAR
(Court Room No. 22)
DATE : 8th October, 2020.
-- 1 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 2 :
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner Abhinav Gopal Agarwal and his wife Renuka
Abhinav Agarwal 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 14/1/2001 as per the Hindu Vedic rites. There is one
daughter viz.Siddhi born out of the said wedlock, who is taking the
education in Eco(H), Motilal Nehru College, South Campus, Delhi. It is
their contention that they were having desire of a son and they decided
to adopt a male child and they came across the photograph of the 9
days old child available for adoption through one Pawan Sharma and in
the first glance they decided to adopt the said child, which could bring
new energy, reason in their life and last rites of the petitioners could be
performed as by their son. It is contended that it was represented to
them that there is nobody to look after the said 9 days child as the
parentage of the child is not known. So also it is contended by
petitioners that Pawan Sharma, Bhagyashri Koli and one Savita assured
them that they will comply all the due process of law for valid adoption
of the said child. Thus, believing on the abovesaid person they took the
custody of said child on 12/11/2016.
3. It is contended that after taking child in custody, they performed
the naming ceremony of the child on 27/12/2016 and the child was
named as 'Yathartha'. So also in August 2017 they celebrated Mundun
Ceremony at Kalkaji Devi Mandir at Delhi, so also celebrated 'Yatarthas
-- 2 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 3 :
first birthday on 3/11/2017 at Royal Pepper Banquet at Delhi and they
invited their relatives and friends for the celebration. It is further
contended that they have taken due care of the child as their own son
and admitted him in renowned School viz.Kidzee and also taken due
care time to time and his vaccination done under the treatment of
doctor Vyom Agarwal.
4. 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.94/2019 and
subsequently released on bail and they handed over the custody of said
child to Police on 7/7/2019.
5. It is contended that after their release, they preferred an
application before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Mumbai,
respondent for the custody of Yatartha on 22/6/2019, but that
application came to be rejected on 26/8/2019. It is contended that
there is no betterment or welfare of Yatartha as he is being kept in an
institution by the CWC. Yatartha is not getting the education as he is
not been admitted in any School. It is contended that as the parentage
of Yatartha is not known and that he was brought up by the petitioners
since he was 9 days old, they have more affection and welfare of
Yatartha is with them and they will take all his care and for better
upbringing. Therefore, it is requested to give the said child Yatartha in
adoption and petition be allowed as prayed for.
-- 3 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 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 no.4783/2019 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 VI, 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 and, 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 Yatartha and the custody of
Yatartha 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
-- 4 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 5 :
my consideration and my finding thereon for the reasons recorded are
as under:
Sr.
No
POINTS FINDINGS
1 Whether the petitioners are competent to
adopt child Yatartha ?
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 3. So also they have filed the
original documents in support of their contention as per list of
documents at Exhibit 4. The petitioners have closed their evidence by
filing the evidence closing pursis at Exhibit 9. The CWC has also filed
the pursis at Exhibit 10 and informed to the court that it doesnot 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 petitioner are arraigned as accused in Crime No.55/2019 with DCB
CID Unit VI 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
-- 5 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 6 :
arrested by the police and police took the custody of child (Yatartha)
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 VI for declaring the child "legally free from
adoption". It appears that the committee received the said report on
4/10/2020 from DCB CID confirming the non tracability of the
biological parents of said Yatartha and thus establishing him as an
abandoned child. Subsequently informed that the child in this petition
has been declared legally free for adoption.
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. They have one
daughter Siddhi, who is pursuading her studies at Delhi and the
petitioners were having desire to have a son and they decided to adopt
-- 6 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 7 :
a son. It is argued that one Mr. Pawant Sharma shown a photograph of
9 days born and represented to himself from NGO and it was told that
the parentage of the said child is not known and Mr.Pawan Sharma
assured to the petitioner to complete all the necessary formalities for
the valid adoption of the said child. Consequently, the petitioners took
the custody of said child on 12/11/2016 and thereafter, they performed
the naming ceremony, Mundun Ceremony and admitted Yatartha in a
renowned school Kidzee as their son.
14. It is also submitted that the petitioners have taken the best care
of the child since he was 9 days old and brought him as their son.
Yatartha also considered them as his parents. It is submitted that after
registration of the offence against the petitioners and others, CWC
called the report from DCB CID Unit VI 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 the
the petitioners are not competent to take the said child Yatartha 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 Yathartha as parents and they have taken all the necessary care of
Yathartha since he was 9 days old. 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
Yatartha in an institutional care and in custody with the respondent
CWC. Lastly, it is requested to safeguard the welfare and wellbeing of
Yathartha this petition be allowed. It is submitted that the petitioners
-- 7 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 8 :
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
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
-- 8 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 9 :
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
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 Yatartha 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
-- 9 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 10 :
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
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 Yathartha, 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:--
-- 10 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 11 :
“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)
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
-- 11 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 12 :
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
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."
-- 12 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 13 :
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 .
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 child was
abandoned by its biological parents.
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 Yathartha is in the custody of Specialized Adoption
Agency Bal Anand and that agency is working under CWC.
26. It is important to mention here that in principal HAMA the
statement of the objects and reasons of Amending Act,1962, clearly
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
-- 13 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 14 :
the care and custody of such orphaned 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 given an
orphaned or abandoned child in adoption, the management of care and
protection homes where such children reside was 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.
27. Admittedly, in the present case,right from the age of 9 days child
Yatartha was in the custody and care of petitioners and only after the
registration of the offence by DCB CID Unit VI against them, child
Yatartha was taken into the custody from the petitioners by the police
and he was deprived the love and affection of the petitioners. The
police handed over the custody of Yatartha to CWC and now the said
child is in Bal Anand under the care and protection of CWC, as stated
above.
28. On the cost of repetition there is no dispute that said child
Yatarta was abondoned and his parents are unknown. In view of the
matter the guardian CWC became capable of giving the child in
adoption, of course with the previous permission of the Court, which
should be satisfied that the adoption is for the welfare of the child.
29. There is enough material on record to conclude that the welfare
-- 14 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 15 :
of the child Yatartha 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 Yatartha
is made with any ulterior motive or with bad intention.
30. 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 Yathartha who was in their
custody since he was 9 days old. 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
Yathartha and would ensure proper education is imparted to him.
31. 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 itslef shall not be used to deny the adoption to
petitioners. "
-- 15 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 16 :
32. 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 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 Yathartha.
33. 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 Yathartha 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 Yathartha, as it will be in the
best interest of child Yathartha to restore him to the petitioners.
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 Yatartha 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
-- 16 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 17 :
wellbeing of the child Yatartha. In the result, I answer point no.1 and 2
according and pass following order:
O R D E R
1. Adoption Petition No.5/2020 is allowed.
2. It is declared that the Petitioner No.1 Abhinav Gopal Aggarwal
and Petitioner No.2 Mrs.Renuka Abhinav Aggarwal are the adoptive
father and mother respectively of the minor male child Yatharth and
henceforth child Yatharth is the son of Petitioner No.1 and 2.
3. The concerned Municipal authorities are directed to issue birth
certificate of Yathartha who was born on 3/11/2016 showing the name
of Petitioner No.1 Mr.Abhinav Aggarwal as his father and Petitioner
No.2 Mrs.Renuka Abhinav Aggarwal 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 Yathartha Abhinav Aggarwal.
5. The petitioners are directed not to give minor Yathartha 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 Yathartha 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
Yathartha as and when required by this Court or by the Criminal Court,
where the Criminal proceeding is pending, without fail.
8. The respondents Child Welfare Committee is directed to
handover the custody of minor child Yathartha 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 Yathartha is
-- 17 of 18 --
Adopt.Pet.No.5/2020 Judgment : 18 :
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.5/2020 is thus disposed of accordingly.
Date : 08.10.2020 (M.M.UMAR)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 08.10.2020
Typed on : 08.10.2020
Signed by HHJ. : 13.10.2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
13.10.2020 12.15 p.m. Mrs. Jyoti Mane
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri MM Umar (CR No.22)
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order.
08.10.2020
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 13.10.2020
Judgment/order uploaded on 13.10.2020
-- 18 of 18 --