JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - The instant revision has been preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth 'the Juvenile Act, 2015') against the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.8 of 2017, whereby the Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 for inter-country adoption of orphan male child Bala.

2. Leaving a question open whether an appeal or a revision would lie before this Court against the impugned order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Family Court on the application under Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 in a Miscellaneous Civil Suit, I, keeping in view the provision contained in Section 102 of the Juvenile Act, 2015, proceed to decide the instant revision.

3. The Applicant is a recognised Specialised Adoption Agency as per the provisions contained in the Juvenile Act, 2015. The orphan male child Bala, whose date of birth is 5.1.2014, was admitted in the agency on 5.1.2014 itself. The child was produced before the District Child Welfare Committee and was declared free for adoption. After completing the necessary formalities, the details of the child were put in the portal of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (henceforth 'the CARA'), which is a statutory body of the Ministry of Women and Child Development of the Government of India. Subsequently, the Prospective Adoptive Parents (henceforth 'PAPs') of orphan child Bala came forward for which the CARA gave a no objection certificate. After doing all the formalities, an application under Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 was filed on 17.7.2017, which has been rejected by the Family Court vide the impugned order dated 3.11.2017 on the following grounds:

(1) There is no material available on record to show that as per the provision of Section 59(1) of the Juvenile Act, 2015, within 60 days from 15.4.2015, i.e., the date on which the child was legally free for adoption, any Indian or Non-Resident Indian has not come forward as PAPs of the child because as per Section 59(1) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 the child will be free for inter-country adoption only if no Indian or Non-Resident Indian comes forward for adoption.

(2) Provision of Section 59(6) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 has not been complied with. No matching of the child with PAPs was done, therefore, provision of Section 59(6) of the Juvenile Act, 2015 has not been complied with and PAPs have not appeared before the Court and have not been examined.

(3) The documents filed with regard to the child have not been proved as per Section 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mere marking of the documents as exhibits does not amount to proving of the documents and the same is not explained.

4. The instant revision has been preferred on the grounds that the impugned order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Family Court is contrary to the law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Family Court has failed to see that in a civilised society welfare of a child has got the utmost importance. If welfare of a child is ignored, the same would destroy the entire fabric and future of the civilised society. Therefore, the only provision, which is to be seen for adoption, is for welfare of a child. The Family Court has failed to see that the agencies formed under the Juvenile Act, 2015 are the specialised agencies for the purpose of adoptions and a procedure has been adopted to make the proceedings of adoption transparent, therefore, applying the strict rule of law with regard to provision for proving the documents before the Court is contrary to the provisions of law. The Family Court has failed to see that the Specialised Adoption Agencies, setting up of a State Adoption Resource Agency and constitution of the CARA are for facilitating and