Back
Bombay High Court Rules CWC Lacks Jurisdiction Over Even If Adoption Flawed
In a significant ruling that clarifies the limits of the Child Welfare Committee's (CWC) powers, the , has held that the CWC cannot exercise jurisdiction over a child who is neither an orphan nor abandoned, even if the adoption procedure was not followed properly. The division bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta the CWC's order that had taken custody of a child from adoptive parents and returned the child to biological parents, directing that the child be handed back to the adoptive family.
Adoptive Parents Challenge CWC's Intervention
The case involved a couple, Nilima and Dilip Kannurwar, who claimed they had adopted a baby boy born to their friends, Shubhangi and Sunil Chhichude, in . The adoption was performed according to Hindu customs at the in Chandrapur, and a was executed. The biological parents, already having two children and facing financial difficulties, voluntarily gave the child to the issueless couple.
However, on , the CWC, Chandrapur, summoned both parties and passed an order taking the child into its custody and handing the child back to the biological parents. The adoptive parents then approached the High Court, arguing that since the child was neither abandoned nor orphaned, the CWC had no authority to intervene.
Court Examines Scope of CWC's Powers
The State, representing the CWC, argued that the adoption was illegal because the procedure under the
Guidelines—which have statutory recognition under the
—had not been followed. The court acknowledged that the deed of adoption was not registered and that
"merely notarising the same does not amount to a
."
Despite this procedural flaw, the court scrutinized the
. Referring to
, the bench observed that the CWC is empowered only in relation to
"
"
as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. The court noted that the child in question did not fall under any of the categories listed in that definition—he was not orphaned, abandoned, surrendered, or otherwise in need of care and protection.
Key Observations: No Jurisdiction Over
The court placed heavy reliance on its own earlier judgment in Leelendra Deju Shetty and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra (), which had similarly held that children who are not orphaned or abandoned cannot be subjected to CWC orders. Drawing from that precedent, the bench stated:
"Since we have already considered that the children involved in do not fall in the category of , the custody obtained by the CWC and passing order by the CWC handing over the child again to the biological parents is not justified."
The court further emphasized:
"The CWC itself does not get any power to deal with the child who is neither abandoned or orphan."
On the 's validity, the court remarked:
"The deed of adoption executed between the parties is not registered, and merely notarising the same does not amount to a ."
Final Decision: Custody Restored to Adoptive Parents
The High Court allowed the
, quashing and setting aside the CWC's order dated
. The court directed the biological parents to hand over custody of the child to the petitioners forthwith. While the court did not delve into the legality of the adoption itself, it made clear that the CWC had overstepped its authority. The ruling reaffirms that the
is strictly limited to children who meet the statutory definition of
"
"
under the Juvenile Justice Act.
