The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption process for Inter-Country Adoption must comply with the Hague Convention and the Regulations for Inter-Country Adoption, and the issuance of NOC and Conformity Certificate is contingent upon communication from the receiving country.

ORDER :

The petitioners, husband and wife are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider their representation dated 20-06-2023 made for the purpose of issuance No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) and Conformity Certificate in favour of their adopted child in terms of Adoption Regulations, 2022 for Inter-Country Relative Adoption.

2. The facts, adumbrated, are as follows:-

The petitioners are husband and wife. The 1st petitioner/ husband is presently employed in Frankfurt, Germany and the wife is a resident of this nation-Bengaluru. Both the petitioners are citizens of India. Owing to the desire of adopting a child, as the petitioners did not have any issue from the wedlock for long years, the couple adopted a girl child of one Smt. S.Rashmi in the presence of relatives and friends. Smt. S. Rashmi gave her child in adoption by executing an adoption deed on 29-03-2023 before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chikkaballapura as the child was born in Chikkaballapura and the mother of the child was a resident of Chikkaballapura. Upon registration of adoption deed, as required in law, verification was done by the Deputy Commissioner and a certificate of verification was also issued along with the recommendation that adoption of the child being valid necessary action be taken upon the said adoption. The petitioners then seek issuance of an NOC and a conformity certificate in favour of adoption of the child by presenting it before the District Child Protection Unit. The District Child Protection Unit has not considered the request and has not issued an NOC as also conformity certificate of adoption. The petitioners have sent plethora of e-mails seeking issuance of NOC and conformity certificate. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction for their issuance.

3. Heard Sri S. Rohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that adoption is under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act’ for short) and the adoption is valid in the eye of law. The process of adoption is verified by the competent Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Urban District. As per law, he has also recommended the adoption to the Central Adoption Resource Authority for necessary action. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in terms of Regulation 58 of the Adoption Regulations, 2002 NOC in favour of adoption of the child should be issued within 10 days from the date of adoption order by the District Protection Unit. The learned counsel would submit that despite all documents being in place, even as on date, NOC and conformity certificate have not been issued which has left the child high and dry. He would seek a direction for such issuance within the time frame.

5. Per-contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri H. Shanthi Bhushan would refute the submissions to contend that adoption under the Act is not internationally recognized. The inter-country adoption is a product of Hague convention on protection of children and cooperation in respect of inter-country adoption and under articles of the convention, as fructified into regulations, they would require the petitioners to go before the country in which the father resides, communicate a mail to the Indian counterpart under the adoption regulations and within 10 days a certificate and NOC would be issued in this country. The petitioners cannot claim a right for violation of the procedure quoting any of the instances of hardship, as the process will have to meet the Regulations. If Hague convention had recognized the Act, no objection would have been granted to the petitioners. But, it is not the issue at hand. Hague convention does not recognize the kind of adoption that the petitioners have resorted to. He would seek dismissal of the petition