- The cousin of one of the petitioners, who is a sister and a social worker met the biological parents of the adopted girl and found that the child was severely malnourished and the biological parents were ready to give their daughter for adoption.
- The girl was later adopted by the petitioners, who are a Christian couple and the adoption deed was executed under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
- The difficulty arose for the petitioners when they tried to get a passport for the child to go to the USA, where they were employed, as the passport authority refused to recognize the adoption deed.
- The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the child was their legally adopted daughter but it was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the adoption was violative of Section 2(1)(c) read with Sections 5 & 6 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
- The petitioners also approached Central Adoption Resource Authority with a request to issue a certificate recognizing their adoption but the same was refused by CARA and therefore the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court through writ petition seeking permission to take their child to the USA.
- The counsel for the respondents (CARA) submitted that the petitioners’ adoption is not valid and hence CARA cannot issue the non-objection certificate sought by the petitioners.
- Counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had suffered due to wrong legal advice and the biological parents were happy to hand over their daughter to the petitioner.
- The Court gave relief to the Christian couple and stated that although the adoption deed was not valid in law, they looked over the child in a good manner and it would be against the welfare of the child to uproot her from the adoptive family and therefore declared the petitioners as adoptive parents.
- But the Court observed that Christians could not adopt under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act and in this case, the law was very easily flouted.
- Even though the Court gave the judgment in favor of the petitioners, it observed that CARA’s stand cannot be objected to as the adoption was not valid in the eyes of law.
- The Court also directed CARA to issue the requisite Non-Objection Certificate and not to insist on the compliance of Section 59(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
What are your views on the case?