SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
MANISH PITALE, J.
Mr. Sumed S/o Devidas Thamke – Appellant
Versus
Nil – Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 9 of 2021
Decided On : 30-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mrs. Ira P. Khisti, Mr. F.T. Mirza.

Point of Law: Adoption - Applicability of JJ Act, 2015 - Adoption of child can be undertaken under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015, only if the child is either in conflict with law or in need of care and protection.

Headnote:

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 2 (3) r/w 68(c) - Adoption Regulations, 2017 - Regulations 4, 2(4) and 52 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 44 - Procedure for inter-country relative adoption - Eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents - Legal Procedure - Biological parents and prospective adoptive parents - Whether applicants before this Court, who are biological parents (applicant Nos. 3 and 4) and prospective adoptive parents (applicant Nos. 1 and 2) of a minor girl child, are justified in claiming that said child can be given and taken in adoption under provisions of Act, 2015 - Practice of adoption has been prevalent since ancient time and in different societies established practices and norms have evolved over a period of time. With the advent of democracy and modern form of government, such customs, traditions and practices have found their way in codified law.

Finding of the Court:

There is a departure from provisions of earlier enactment i.e. JJ Act, 2000. An entire chapter i.e. Chapter VIII pertaining to adoption has been introduced in JJ Act, 2015 - Impugned order is quashed and set aside. Court below is directed to consider application afresh, filed by revision applicants as biological parents (revision applicant Nos. 3 and 4) and prospective adoptive parents (revision applicant Nos. 1 and 2) on merits under provisions of JJ Act, 2015, to examine whether they satisfy all procedural requirements thereunder. Depending on findings on said aspects, Court below shall dispose of application submitted by revision applicants as expeditiously as possible.

Result: Revision application partly allowed and disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. Hearing was conducted through video conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel.

3. The practice of adoption has been prevalent since ancient time and in different societies the established practices and norms have evolved over a period of time. With the advent of democracy and modern form of government, such customs, traditions and practices have found their way in codified law through statutes enacted by the Legislature. While initially adoption was undertaken primarily to continue family lineage and ancestor worship, with passage of time adoption has been undertaken for taking care of the needs of children in distress and those needing care and protection. There are personal laws enacted specifying rules and procedure for adoption, as also secular laws for regulating such procedure.

4. The present revision application concerns the question as to whether the applicants before this Court, who are the biological parents (applicant Nos. 3 and 4) and the prospective adoptive parents (applicant Nos. 1 and 2) of a minor girl child, are justified in claiming that the said child can be given and taken in adoption under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “JJ Act, 2015”).

5. The Court of District Judge, Yavatmal has rejected the application filed by the applicants herein under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations, 2017 framed under the said Act on the ground that since the child in the present case is neither a child in conflict with law, nor a child in need of care and protection, nor an orphan, nor a surrendered/abandoned child, the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and the Regulations framed thereunder are not applicable. On this basis, the application filed by the revision applicants has been rejected.

6. Mrs. Ira Khisti, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that the Court below has committed an error in taking an extremely strict view in the matter of applicability of the JJ Act, 2015. It is submitted that a proper appreciation of the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 read with the aforesaid Regulations of 2017 would show that the Legislature has consciously made provisions for adoption of a child by relatives specified under the JJ Act, 2015. It is further submitted that although the emphasis of the JJ Act, 2015 is on providing mechanism to take care of children, who are found to be in conflict with law or those needing care and protection, adoption as a procedure has been specifically laid down and such adoption cannot be limited to children in conflict with law or needing care and protection.

7. By inviting attention to various provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2017, the learned counsel appearing for the revision applicants submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside and that the Court below ought to be directed to consider the application moved by the applicants under the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 and Regulations of 2017, on merits. It is submitted that the view taken by the Court below in holding that JJ Act, 2015 is not applicable to the case of the applicants, is wholly erroneous and deserves to be set aside.

8. Since there are no respondents in the present application, this Court by order dated 24.03.2021 appointed Mr. F.T. Mirza, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court for proper disposal of the present revision application.

9. Accordingly, Advocate Mr. Mirza appeared before this Court and submitted a detailed note along with copies of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Mr. Mirza, learned Amicus Curiae, submitted that if the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 are compared to the earlier enactment i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top