The central legal point established in the judgment is that the best interest of the child and the consent of the biological father are crucial factors in recognizing an adoption, as per the fundamental principles under the Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children, 2011.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This writ petition presents some peculiar facts before the Court. By way of the present petition, the Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondent to declare Petitioner No.2 as the adoptive father of Petitioner No.1.

3. Petitioner No.1-Mr. Rohan Desai, who is the biological son of Mr. Vincent Dominic Braganza and Petitioner No.3-Mrs. Ritu Desai (@ Ritu Kanoria, @ Ritu Braganza), was born in Kolkata on 27th February, 1998. Unfortunately, the biological parents of Petitioner No.1 divorced and a decree of divorce was granted under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on 9th March, 2004 by the District Judge, Alipore.

4. Post the divorce being granted, Petitioner No.3-Mrs. Ritu Desai has married Petitioner No.2-Mr. Dipesh Desai. They currently live in Sarvodaya Enclave, New Delhi. In the petition, the Petitioners pray that Petitioner No.2 be declared as the adoptive father of Mr. Rohan Desai.

5. As per the Petitioners, the biological father had agreed for the change of name from `Rohan Braganza' to `Mr. Rohan Desai' and the same was published on 26th October, 2013 in the Official Gazette which reads as under:

"I, VINCENT DOMINIC BRAGANZA son of Sh. VINCENT FRANCIS BRAGANZA, residing at A-2, Swarna Residency Off. LRDECV Raman Nagar, Bangalore-560093 present at New Delhi, have changed the name of my minor son ROHAN VINCENT BRAGANZA and he shall hereafter be known as ROHAN DESAI for all purposes.

It is certified that I have complied with other legal requirements in this connection

VINCENT DOMINIC BRAGANZA"

6. In the year 2003 itself, the biological father had no objection with the complete custody of the son being with the mother and since then Petitioner No.1 has been residing with Petitioner Nos.2 and 3. At the time when the name change publication was issued, Mr. Rohan Desai was a minor. However, currently he is a major. The case of the Petitioners is that the school certificates, the progress report, class X certificate issued by the CBSE of Petitioner No.1 reflect Mr. Dipesh Desai as the father of Mr. Rohan Desai.

7. It is the submission of ld. Counsel that there are no regulations which provide for adoption of the Petitioner, who is a major, under these circumstances. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration by this Court. The relief sought is as under:

"(a) Pass an appropriate writ/direction/order directing the Respondent to declare that the Petitioner No. 2 is the adoptive father of the Petitioner No.1, and/or

(b) Pass any such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."

8. The stand of the Respondent is that as per the prevalent Regulations at that time i.e., Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children, 2011, a `no-objection' of the biological father would be required for the purpose of recognizing the adoption. Moreover, at the time when the application has been made seeking the registration of the adoption, the Petitioner was a major, thus, the adoption cannot be permitted.

9. On 17th January, 2023, the Petitioners i.e., Mr. Rohan Desai, Mr. Dipesh Desai and also Mrs. Ritu Desai appeared before the Court through virtual mode. The interaction with the Petitioners had revealed that the Petitioners are living together as a family. During the hearing, it was disclosed to the Court that Mrs. Ritu Desai and Mr. Dipesh Desai also have a daughter. The observations of the Court on 17th January 2023, are set out below:

"8. All three Petitioners have joined the proceedings virtually. The Court has interacted with Mr. Rohan Desai, Mr. Dipesh Desai and also Mrs. Ritu Desai. After interaction with the Petitioners, it is revealed that the Petitioners are living together as a family. The couple also has a daughter who is living with them. The Petitioner no.1 refers to Petitioner no.2 as `Dad' during his interact