ANIL KUMAR Vs. BIKRAM SINGH BISHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the husband and wife and they are the petitioners in OP 897/2015 on the file of the family court, Kannur. The aforesaid original petition was filed under sections 6,7,9,10,11 and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, for an order recording the adoption deed No.142/14 of SRO, Thalassery, by order of the court. According to the petitioners, they have no biological child even after 14 years of their marriage and the second petitioner is incapable of giving birth to a child due to clinical reasons and she will not be able to conceive. The petitioners and respondents are Hindus by religion. The respondents were willing to give their 4th baby girl, by name Sreelakshmi, born on 21.8.2014 at Dhanalakshmi Hospital, Kannur, in adoption to the petitioners, as the respondents are already having three children, aged 14, 12 and 6 years respectively. The respondents have no sufficient means to look after the four children, whereas the petitioners have sufficient means and health to take the child in adoption and to maintain her. The respondents were also ready to give the child in adoption to the petitioners, without any consideration or offer of money. On the other hand, the paramount welfare of the child alone was taken into consideration by both the petitioners and the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents have given the said child, by name, Sreelakshmi, in adoption to the petitioners and petitioners have taken the child in adoption on 2.12.2014 and they have executed a deed of adoption on the same day and got it registered, as Document No. 142/14 of SRO, Thalassery. After the date of the said adoption deed, the child Sreelakshmi have all rights of an adopted daughter under law. But, when they approached the school authorities for getting admission to the child, they insisted that the adoption deed should be legally recognized by a court of law and then only the child can be admitted in school. After the deed of adoption, the respondents have ceased to have any legal right over the child as parents, except their status as natural parents. Ever since the adoption, the child has been living with the petitioners under their care and protection, as if she is their biological child. So, it is highly necessary to record and grant recognition to the registered deed of adoption executed by the petitioners and respondents, by the family court, to get legal validity and sanctity to the said adoption.

(2.) On receipt of notice, the second respondent alone appeared through counsel. Thereafter, both respondents were called absent and set ex-parte. The second petitioner has got herself examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the family court returned the original petition on a finding that the family court has no jurisdiction to deal with the legality of the adoption of a child, under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act and the District Court is the competent court to deal with the issue, as provided under section 9 (4), coupled with explanation 2 of the Act. The family court is competent to deal with the adoption matters, under the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 only. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid finding are assailed in this original petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.