SAU.CHHAYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) We are satisfied that the adoption in question of child - Ritik Gitesh Pipre, has been completed in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, the Act of 1956). The said child has been adopted by the adoptive parents i.e. the petitioners from the natural biological parents of the child. These facts clearly indicate that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the Act of 2015) has no application to the adoption deed involved in this case. This can be seen from the expression made in Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 56 of the Act of 2015, which is reproduced below for the sake of convenience.

(3.) Of course, under Sec. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, the Act of 1908), the registration of the adoption deed is not compulsory. But, it is a document which can be registered in terms of Sec. 18 sub-clause (f) of the Act of 1908. There are distinct advantages attached to the registration of adoption deed under Sec. 16 of the Act of 1956. Sec. 16 of the Act of 1956 prescribes that whenever any adoption deed is duly executed by the parties and is registered, the Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1956, until the presumption is rebutted, when such a deed is called before any Court of law. Therefore, we find that the Sub-Registrar, Gadchiroli, could not have directed the parties to first comply with the provisions of Sec. 56 of the Act of 2015 before adoption deed is registered by him. In fact, the procedure laid down under Sec. 56 of the Act of 2015 operates in a field which is different than the procedure which is required to be followed, in case the adoption deed is executed in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1956.