SANJAY MEHTA Vs. SUPRENTENDENT OF MATRACHHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 08/01/08 passed by sessions Judge, Indore in Case No. O/07 whereby the application filed by the petitioners U/s 41 of Juvenile Justice Board Act was returned to the petitioners to file the same before the Competent Court, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondent filed a joint petition. U/s 41 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2000 (which shall be referred hereinafter as an Act) before the learned Court below alleging that the respondent is an institution which takes care of orphan children. It was alleged in the petition that infant Vaidehi aged three years be given in adoption to the petitioners. In the petition it was also alleged that the petitioners moved an application U/s 41 of the Act before the Juvenile Justice Board, Indore but the same was returned vide order dated 09/08/07 alleging that the Juvenile Justice board was empowered to entertain the appliction u / s 41 (3.) of the Act but Section 41 (3) of the Act has been amended and after coming into force of the amendment the Juvenile Justice Board is having no jurisdiction to entertain such kind of application. In the petition it was prayed that appropriate orders be passed for giving the infant Vaidehi in adoption to the petitioners. This petition was filed on 12/10/07. After keeping the said petition pending for a period of more than three months vide order dated 08/01/08 the learned District Judge returned the same holding that since there are no parents of the infant, therefore, U/s 9of the Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 respondent being a guardian is entitled to give Vaidehi in adoption. It was further held that under the provisions of Hindu adoption and Maintenance Act; 1956 District Court is competent to entertain such type of applications but as per Explanation-G of Section 6 of Family Court act the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and the jurisdiction is given as per section 7 of the Family Court Act, therefore, the petition was returned to the petitioners to move the same before the appropriate Court, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) MR. MUKESH Sinjonia, learned counsel for petitioners argued at length and submits that for taking the infant Vaidehi in adoption petitioners are running from pillar to post and no appropriate order has been passed by any Court on the petition filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the petitioners be permitted to take Vaidehi in adoption.