ZAVEED PHARUKHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 30th November, 2004, dismissing the appellants' Petition. The appellants have filed the Petition for an order declaring appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as guardians of the ward viz. newly born baby boy namely FARAZ (formerly known as "sohail") ; for an order declaring that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have the legal exclusive and valid custody of the said child and for an order declaring that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as such will be entitled to take him out of the country to their place of residence.

(2.) Appellant No. 4 is the wife of appellant No. 3. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1.

(3.) Appellant No. 1 is a citizen of India. Appellant No. 2 is a citizen of the united States of America (U. S. A. ). Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 reside in U. S. A. At present they reside in Canada and desire to take the child to Canada. Appellant nos. 1 and 2 were married on 21st January, 1998. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have no children. During their visits to Mumbai, they used to stay with the brother-in- law of appellant No. 2 one Subhash Ghai. One Aasia was working as a domestic servant at the said Subhash Ghai's residence for several years. She was aware that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 did not have children and were desirous of adopting a child. Aasia also knew appellant Nos. 3 and 4. She was aware that appellant Nos. 3 and 4 had a fourth child i. e. the said child and that they were finding it difficult to provide for him. Appellant No. 3 is a labourer who mainly does household chores. Appellant No. 4 is a housewife. Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 have had no formal education and are illiterate. Their income is extremely low. In addition to the said child, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 also have three other children viz. Roobina, farook and Iqbal born on 13th April, 1992, 8th August, 1994 and 28th May, 1999 respectively. It is stated that they are not in a position to maintain all the children. They were informed by Aasia that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were desirous of adopting a child. Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were unable to look after even the first three children. It is submitted that they are finding it difficult to provide for the fourth child. They therefore, considering the welfare of the child, consented and agreed to give the said child in adoption to appellant Nos. 1 and 2.