DATTATRAYA GANESH BHAT Vs. SURENDER KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short "Code" arises out of the judgment and order dated May 30th, 1995, delivered by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum (Sri C.Y. Ellur), dismissing the revisionist's petition under Section 9, sub-section 4 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for short, "The Act".

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the revisionist is the Manager of Bal Kalyan Kendra known as Smt. Gangamma Chikkumbimath Bal Kalyan Kendra of Swami Vivekanand Seva Pratishthan, Belgaum. According to the revisionist, this is an institution located in Belgaum and is registered under the Bombay Trust Act. This public institution is engaged in the social welfare activity of taking care of the neglected as well as the orphan children. According to the revisionist, a male child known by name Keshava is and has been in the care and custody of the revisionist's institution. The male child Keshava, as per allegations was deserted for reasons best known by his parents, since the time of his birth and the revisionist has been taking care of that child since that time. The revisionist in his application submitted that in the year 1994, the respondent - Smt. Surrender Kumari, wife of Purshothama Channa, that is, the respondent in the case visited this Bal Kalyan Kendra and offered to adopt this male child Keshava. The authorities of the Bal Kalyan Kendra in their efforts to make sure that the respondent bona fide desires to adopt the child made enquiries and got reports from certain competent Authorities. That according to the reports, respondent has no child and the reports indicated that even she has no hopes of be getting a child at any time hereafter. The revisionist's further case is that respondents' financial position has been satisfactory and that the respondents will take care of the child. The revisionist's case is that the revisionist became satisfied that the respondent bona fide desires to adopt the said orphanage child - Keshava deserted by his parents and that the interest of the child would also be safe. According to the revisionist's case, the respondents came to India twice to take the child in adoption after having spent huge amount. Therefore, the revisionist further alleged that it will be in the welfare of the child if the child is given in adoption to the respondents. The revisionist further asserted in the application that neither the revisionist nor his institution have received nor have agreed to receive any money or reward in consideration of giving the child in adoption. On these grounds, the revisionist has sought the permission of the Court under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, for short, "The Adoption Act", to give the child in adoption to the respondents. Before the Trial Court, respondent put in appearance, enquiry was conducted and the petitioner and respondents were examined and Home Study Report was also filed which was marked as Ex. P-1.

(3.) That after having heard the Counsels for both the parties, the Trial Court rejected the application taking the view that the Home Study Report being authenticated by United States of America as well as by Indian Embassey in U.S.A., clearly reveals that respondents - Smt. Surender Kumari and her husband - Purshothama Channa, both are citizens of United States. As per Ex. P-1, at page 4 under the heading Citizenship, it is "stated" Mr./Mrs. Channa became citizens of United States. Mr. Channa became a citizen (12472791) on January 13th, 1987. Mrs. Channa became a citizen (12558444), on October 13th, 1987. So, both proposed adoptive mother and father, the Court below observed, are citizens of United States of America and therefore, it held that they are the citizens of United States of America and not the citizens of India and they are domiciled in United States of America, that is, outside the territories of India. Therefore, respondent and her husband are not governed by Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, for short, "The Adoption Act". The Trial Court opined that the Act is applicable to a Hindu domiciled in India. Taking that view, the Trial Court held that the application moved under Section 9(4) of the Act has not been maintainable on the admitted facts. Therefore, without entering into considerations of the merits relating to welfare of the child and the like, the Trial Court, that is, Additional Civil Judge, Belgaum, dismissed the application as not maintainable under law and dismissed it.