GEETA RANI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present civil revision is for quashing of orders dtd. 6/7/2021 (Annexure P-7) and 2/8/2021 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Panchkula.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners has raised objections to the manner in which the Family Court is proceeding and inquiring into the matter of alleged adoption of minor child Rudra Kumar, whose date of birth is 15/10/2007. Registered adoption deed is stated to be of 25/5/2009. Vide order dtd. 19/8/2009, Lok Adalat, Panchkula at a pre-litigation stage, had granted a declaration that the child was adopted son of the petitioners. The defendant in that case was Aadarsh Rani, who is stated to be natural mother of the child and had live-in relationship with one Keshav Kumar and out of which, the child was born. On the strength of the said order, petitioners had initially approached this court by filing CWP No.8204 of 2021, praying for direction for removal of the said minor child from his home country for the purpose of visiting Australia on Tourist Visa/permanently and impleaded the Australian High Commission also as respondent No.2.

(3.) In that writ petition, it had been mentioned that petitioners had taken the citizenship of Australia but continued to live in Panchkula (Haryana). Due to compelling circumstances, both the petitioners had to move Australia for their personal reasons without taking along the adopted son, who is stated to be studying and staying in a Boarding School in India and is being looked after by family friends of the petitioners. Strangely the name of the school, as such, has not been mentioned. The Tourist Visa of the minor was then applied and as per the requirement of Australian Adoption Laws, the Court order was required for removing a minor child permanently from his home country, which had led to the filing of that writ petition.