JASWINDER SINGH Vs. RAVI SHANKAR BOSE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.9.2014, passed by the learned First District and Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Adoption Case No. 3 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the adoption case has been rejected. Brief facts, giving rise to present Appeal, are as under:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ld. Court below has failed to consider the fact that the Appellant as Petitioner fulfilled all the required formalities and has duly complied with all the terms and conditions prescribed under Adoption Guidelines 2011. The documents relating to Domestic Adoption of the child were also placed on records which are part of the record. It is further submitted that the Ld. Court below has failed to consider the scope of Section 41(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, whereby and whereunder the Court below has to be satisfied with the investigations carried out in terms of the guidelines before giving the child in adoption. It is also submitted that the Ld. Court below in a mechanical manner rejected the adoption case on the ground that medical examination report is not available, whereas complete investigation report about medical examination of the parents and the child was submitted and there is mention about the same in the Dossier, which was sent to CARA containing the Home study report of authorized Foreign Agency. It is further pointed out that the Ld. Court below came to erroneous finding by observing that on the medical examination report of the child was signed by the doctor of West Singhbhum whereas the child is the resident of Khunti, such finding is not at all tenable as a doctor can practice anywhere and in this case the doctor is a visiting doctor of Sahyog Village. Apart from the above, it is submitted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been made for the welfare and betterment and/or rehabilitation of child.

(3.) IT further appears that the learned court below has rejected the adoption case on the ground of medical examination of the parents. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant, by referring the records and proceedings, pointed out that the Home Study Report was produced on record before the learned court below and the said Home Study Report contains the medical examination report of the parents. This report specifically provides that the health of the couple is up to the mark and they are capable of taking the child in adoption and to look after the child with all due care. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring the Home Study Report, which is produced on record, also pointed out that all other required criteria for taking a child in inter -country adoption, are very well taken care of in the said report and all the requisite criteria have been fulfilled and satisfied for taking the child in inter -country adoption, such as, their family background, financial capability, social status, etc. It further appears that the learned court below has also rejected the adoption case on the ground that the requisite procedure as has been provided under Rules 10, 11, 12 and 13, have not been followed. But, on perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it transits that except Rules 14 and 15, no other Rules are applicable in the instant case as the child is a surrendered child. Rules 12 to 13 deals with the orphans and abandoned child. It appears that the learned court below has miserably failed to appreciate this aspect and thereby rejected the adoption case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the paramount consideration for intercountry adoption or domestic adoption, is the welfare of the child, and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it becomes amply clear that the requirements under the law, rules and guidelines have been strictly adhered to, and the conditions, which are to be fulfilled by the parents as well as different agencies working for adoption, have been fulfilled, and therefore, the judgment and order dated 27.9.2014, passed by the learned Court below (First District and Sessions Judge, Khunti) in Adoption Case No. 3 of 2014, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the Appellant, is, hereby, permitted to give the child in adoption to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.