TIM CECIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the occasion of the 30th anniversary celebrations of the Joint Council on International Children's Services (JCICS), Ms. Melanie Chung-Sherman, Director of Adoptions, Texas, Dillon International Inc., delivered a speech, which was very poignant and moving, the reason being that she herself was a Korean adoptee. The following excerpts from her speech may aptly reflect the dilemma in which I have been placed, in the case on hand:

(2.) THE petition on hand under Sections 3 and 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, is one filed by a couple from Germany, seeking their appointment as the guardians of an infant girl aged about 8 months. What makes this case different from the others is that it is filed with the consent of the biological parents, without being processed through a recognised agency from either of the countries involved.

(3.) SINCE it is a case of Inter Country Adoption, the petitioners were required by law to be sponsored by a recognised Agency. But contending that in a case of this nature, the said requirement of law under Rule 10(A)(1) of Order 21 of the High Court Original Side Rules, need not be insisted upon, the petitioners filed Application No. 1560 of 2011 for dispensing with the said requirement. On 21.3.2011, I passed an order in the said application to the following effect:- "Office is directed to number this Original Petition and list it for interviewing the biological parents and the adoptive parents on 25.3.2011 at 4.00 p.m., in the Chambers". Accordingly, the Original Petition got numbered and it was posted in my Chamber. I first interviewed the petitioners as well as the biological parents and their evidence was also recorded later in my Chamber. The biological father N. Vijayakumar was examined as PW-1. He filed the following documents as hibits:-