JAYANTILAL L SHAH Vs. ASHA T SHAH MISS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Joint District Judge Rajkot in Misc. Civil Application Nos. 14 of 1985 and 87 of 1985. Two Norwegian couples filed these applications through their power of Attorney Holder Miss Asha Trilokbhai Shah who is Superintendent of Kathiawar Nirashrit Balashram situated at Rajkot for getting themselves appointed as Guardian of two minor children namely Varun and Dipa. The petitioners of Application No. 14 of 1985 were desirous of getting themselves appointed as Guardian of Varun and petitioners in the other petition prayed that they should be appointed Guardians of Minor Dipa. Both the children were destitutes. Their biological parents had surrendered their custody to the Balashram with a specific authority that they may be given in adoption to any couple either in India or abroad and of any religion. The authorities of the Balashram were also given absolute power to give in adoption these children to any couple staying abroad even if that meant taking away the children abroad.

(2.) The applications were duly processed by the agencies ordained. The child study reports were also produced on the record of the case. The public notice in newspaper was dispensed with. However special notices were issued to the Secretary of the Balashram and Gujarat Branch of the Indian Council of Social Welfare. No protest was raised by any of these agencies. However the present appellants raised objections and the learned Judge after considering the objections came to the conclusion that none of the objections raised by the Objectors i.e. present appellants were having any substance. He therefore while over ruling the said objections allowed the petitions and ordered that the applicants Mr. Anstain Thomassan and Mrs. Unni Thomassan of Norway were appointed as Guardians of the person and property of the male child Varun and Mr. & Mrs. Anna Synnove Jorgen were appointed Guardians of person and property of Minor Dipa. Both the couples were permitted to take the children out of India to Norway where they were residing and directed that within a stipulated period the minors may be adopted by these couples in accordance with the Norwegian laws.

(3.) It is against this order that present appeals are directed and almost the same objections which were raised before the learned trial Judge have been sought to be raised before me by Mr. J. R. Nanavati the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Objectors.