Date of judgement
2/08/2021
Judge
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
Paries
Petitioners - JS & ANR.
Respondent - CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY & ANR.
Subject
- Does a Christian couple adopt under Hindu Adoption Act considered as valid adoption?
Overview
- Despite the fact that the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act does not apply to Christians, the couple had adopted the child through an adoption deed executed under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. They claimed they followed "bad legal advice" when they signed the adoption agreement.
- The petitioners claimed that one of their cousins, Sister EA, a social worker, had met the minor child's biological parents, who were migrant labourers. When she arrived at their home, she discovered that the mother was unable to feed their small kid, who had been born on December 11, 2014. The child was determined to be dangerously malnourished after being taken to a paediatrician.
- The biological parents agreed to give the kid up for adoption and handed the youngster over to Sister EA. The petitioners later adopted the child. The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act were used to complete an adoption deed.
- Difficulties came when the petitioners requested a passport for the boy so that they could take him to the United States, where they worked. The petitioners filed a civil suit after the passport authorities declined to act on the adoption deed, claiming that the youngster was their legally adopted daughter.
- However, in 2018, the trial court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the adoption deed was defective because it violated Section 2(1)(c) of the HAMA, as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the HAMA because both the biological and adoptive parents are Christians.
- The petitioners then went to the Central Adoption Resource Authority and requested a certificate stating that the kid was lawfully available for adoption. When the CARA denied the motion, the petitioners filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court.
Legal provision
- Section 2(1)(c) of the HAMA, as well as Sections 5 and 6 of the HAMA
- Section 2 deals with the application of the Act
- Section 5 deals with regulation of the adoption act
- Section 6 deals with requisites of valid adoption
Judgement Analysis
- The petitioners have taken good care of the kid notwithstanding the fact that there is no legitimate adoption," the Court stated.
- The petitioners emphasised that the youngster had been with them since 2014 and had fully assimilated with their family, despite the fact that she did not know her biological parents.
- The petitioners claimed that they are providing her with a decent education and assistance and that upsetting the arrangement would be detrimental to the child's best interests. The petitioners' allegations, however, are unsupported by the law, according to the Court.
- "The petitioners have undoubtedly struggled, but they can only blame themselves. CARA is not to be criticised for following the rules. The parties could not have signed an Adoption Deed under the HAMA since they were Christians. There is no court order designating the minor to be the petitioners' adopted child ". Simultaneously, the Court considered the issue from the perspective of the child's welfare.
- The overall impression that emerges from all of these documents is that the youngster was not trafficked. Though the biological father did not make a formal surrender before the CWC in Ferozepur, he has said on oath before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Ferozepur that he freely handed over the child for adoption. Despite the lack of a legitimate adoption, the petitioners and the parents of petitioner No. 2 have provided excellent care for the kid.
- As a result, the Court determined that the petitioners were suitable and competent to pursue adoption of their foster child under the revised Rules and that the kid is handed to them for adoption.
- As a result, the Court determined that the petitioners were suitable and competent to pursue adoption of their foster child under the revised Rules and that the kid is handed to them for adoption.
Conclusion
On the greater issue of child trafficking and the Acts' provisions, the Court stated: Child trafficking is a heinous crime that the government has attempted to combat via different legal measures. Because human trafficking occurs for a variety of causes, including adoption, international and national steps have been made to prevent it by dictating the technique and process for adopting a child. Despite this, well-educated people sidestep all such rules for personal advantage.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
