This revision petition is filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (for short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Misc. Application No.212/2016.

2. The facts that gave rise to this revision petition are as follows :

3. Petitioner No.1 – Swami Vivekanand Seva Prathistan is a recognized and registered Specialised Adoption Agency having its office at Belagavi. The petitioners No.2 and 3, a legally wedded couple settled at United States of America, desired to adopt an abandoned child, Kum.Manjula born on 05.04.2014. Their application to adopt the child was routed through an Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency, namely, HOLT International Child Service, U.S.A. The petitioners No.2 and 3 executed a power of attorney in favour of the Assistant Manager of petitioner No.1 – Agency, for making an application before the Court for obtaining necessary adoption orders. The VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, who decided this application refused to grant permission by giving the following reasons:

(i) The petitioners No.2 and 3 have already adopted a female child.

(ii) The petitioner No.1 is represented by its Assistant Manager and he represents petitioners No.2 and 3 also in the capacity of a power of attorney holder executed by them in his favour. In adoption, giving and taking of a child is most important. The same person cannot act in dual capacity as a giver and taker.

(iii) The proposed adoption does not appear to be in the best interest of the child.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned order suffers from illegality and the reasons given for rejecting the application are not at all acceptable. The court which decided the application doesn’t say that all the procedural requirements as contemplated under the Guidelines Governing Adoption of Children, 2015 (for short, ‘the Guidelines’) relating to inter-country adoption have not been complied with. The documents to be furnished before the Court are enlisted in Schedule – 8. The petitioners have produced all the documents. In fact, the court below has given a finding that all the legal requirements have been met with. According to the Guidelines, the petitioners No.2 and 3 have to execute a power of attorney in favour of an authorised functionary of Specialized Adoption Agency for the purpose of submitting a petition before the court on their behalf. The adoption order passed by the court cannot be equated with the adoption that takes place according to the religious customs. This is a case of inter-country adoption. The entire procedure is governed by the Guidelines issued in the year 2015. The adoption order passed by the court itself is sufficient for adoption of a child by foreign nationals. Actual giving and taking of a child in adoption is not contemplated under the Guidelines. There is no bar for adoption of a second child by the prospective adoptive parents. According to the Guidelines, the couple with more than four children should not be considered for adoption. This is not the case here. The petitioners No.2 and 3 have already adopted a child and the documents produced by them clearly show that the said child is happily living under the care and custody of petitioners No.2 and 3. When the Home Study report and other documents are to the effect that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are quite healthy and financially capable to adopt one more child, they are eligible to adopt the abandoned child Kum. Manjula. The Guidelines also provide for post adoption care to be taken by authorized Foreign Adoption Agency or the Central Authority or Indian Diplomatic Mission or the concerned Government Department. Therefore, the last reason given by the court below that the proposed adoption is not in the best interest of the child is baseless. The learned counsel submitted that the court below has passed an erroneous order which needs