Chhattisgarh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vimla Singh Kapoor, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the order of the Family Court whereby it had rejected the appellant’s application under Section 59 (7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 thereby refusing to allow inter-country adoption of the “surrendered child”, namely, Princy, aged about 1 year and 7 months.

The subject child was declared available for adoption by the Child Welfare Committee, Jashpur. The child was provided with a registration number under the Adoption Regulations, 2017 framed in exercise of powers under Section 68(C) read with Section 2(3) of the JJ Act. The adoptive parents in Italy were found to be fit and suitable for adoption of the subject child in the Home Study Report prepared by the CIFA, an NGO. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) under the Ministry of Woman and Child Development, Government of India, has maintained a file authorizing Italian NGO CIFA to process inter-country adoption case originating from Italy. CARA had issued no objection to the adoption of the subject child by his Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs). The said NOC was issued as per the Regulations and Article 17(c) of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Inter-Country Adoption, 1993.

The Family Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that the prospective PAPs never appeared before the Court. The High Court noted: “Under sub-section (7) of Section 59, the application for adoption has to be filed in the manner provided in the Adoption Regulations. The present application has been filed in accordance with law as per Regulation 12  of the Regulations. Therefore, it was a case where the Family Court should have allowed the application for adoption.” Also, the PAPs appeared before the High Court and the amicus curiae interacted with them. Also, it was considered, in accordance with the decision in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 1985 Supp SCC 701, whether any PAPs were available within India; but PAPs could be found.

Accordingly, the Court directed that the child be given in adoption to the PAPs. CARA was directed to complete the formality regarding passport and visa and shall do the needful as required under Regulation 18 of the Regulations. Before parting with the case, the court recorded appreciation for the valuable assistance of the Amicus Curiae Shashank Thakur, Advocate. [Sarbjanik Vikas Vahini v. Baruffaldi Enrico Baruffaldi Danilo, 2019 SCC OnLine Chh 43, decided on 17-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Deciding on a foreign adoption petition filed by the petitioners for the adoption of two minors, the bench of of G.S. Patel, J., agreed to give the custody of children to the foreign adoptive parents and not the biological mother due to her indifferent behaviour towards the children.

In this case the two minors were found abandoned on 31st December 2012 by the Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar and were taken to central welfare committee which declared the children free for adoption. Subsequently, a Foreign Adoptive Petition was filed for the adoption of the two minors. While the petition was pending, the birth mother approached the Child welfare committee and demanded return of custody. At that time court was of the view that, though the biological mother had not stated to Court also why she did not even visit the children she claims custody of, nevertheless as she is a biological mother of the two children, the Court deemed it fit to allow her to take custody of the children but subject to certain safeguards that she must show improvement in her maternal behaviour towards the children before the children can be released to her. However, the mother did not bother to visit the children even once after the order was passed to meet them or to secure their release.

About five months later, on seeing the nonchalant behaviour of the biological mother towards the children, a second foreign adoptive petition was filed. On the basis of report prepared by Mr. Hareendran, the Scrutiny Officer of the ICSW and after meeting the children in person, the Court held that the children have already suffered too much and the petitioners can be trusted with their custody. Before allowing the adoption to the couple, the court also took into consideration their nature, qualifications, financial condition, family backgrounds and their relationship with each other.  [Children Of The World (India) Trust and Roy Edward Roos, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2529, decided on 27.04.2016]