T.P.VASANTH Vs. R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises questions of considerable societal significance as to whether the consent of a natural parent to the giving of his minor child in adoption can be implied from the terms of the divorce decree between him and the natural mother of the child and whether his consent can be dispensed with in the interest of such child. The petition is filed under Section 56(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016 (the Juvenile Justice Act) read with the Adoption Regulations, 2017 and Clause 17 of the Letters Patent to appoint the Petitioner, Mr.T.P.Vasanth, as the parent/father of the child; for custody of the child; and for consequential directions to the Registrar of Births.

(2.) The Petitioner is the step father of the child, the first Respondent is the biological father of the child and the second Respondent is the biological mother of the child and the present wife of the Petitioner. The petition is contested by the first Respondent. The first Respondent was married to the second Respondent earlier and the minor female child, Ms.Saatvika, was born on 06.09.2009 to the first and second Respondents herein. Subsequently, they obtained a divorce in Petition No.A-1859 of 2011 by order dated 27.11.2012 from the 7th Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, by entering into a compromise, which was named and styled as an agreement of settlement, which forms a part of the consent decree. As per the terms of the consent divorce decree, the second Respondent was granted permanent custody and guardianship and the first Respondent waived and relinquished his right to access, custody and guardianship on a permanent basis on condition that the second Respondent should not claim maintenance either for herself or the child forever. Thereafter, the second Respondent married the Petitioner on 10.10.2014 and the Petitioner, the second Respondent, the minor child, Saatvika, and the biological minor child of the Petitioner and the second Respondent live as a family unit with the Petitioner assuming and undertaking de facto parental obligations. This petition was filed in these facts and circumstances. The Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and 11 documents were marked through PW1 as Exs.P1 to P11. The first Respondent was examined as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked through RW1. Thereafter, the second Respondent was examined as RW2 and Ex.R5 was marked through her. Each of the witnesses was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the counter party.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the first Respondent and the learned counsel for the second Respondent.