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

2021 Supreme(Ker) 1156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.R. Anitha, J.
Thomas P. And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.A No. 971 of 2019
Decided On : 05-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. R.Renjith, Sri.M.T.Sureshkumar, Advs.
For the Respondent: Smt. N.N.Girija, Smt Sheeba Thomas, PP, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility of relatives for adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act and the jurisdiction of the Family Court as the proper forum for adoption cases.

Headnote:

Adoption - Juvenile Justice Act - Section 2(2), Section 2(23), Section 2(52), Section 56(2), Section 101(5), Rule 40(2), Rule 41(C), Regulation 4, Regulation 5(7), Regulation 55, Section 27, Section 2(14)(iii) - The court discussed various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, Adoption Regulations, and Rules, emphasizing the definition of 'adoption,' 'relative,' and the legal procedures for adoption. The court highlighted the eligibility for adoption, the age criteria for prospective adoptive parents, and the legal procedures for adoption of a child from a relative, and emphasized the jurisdiction of the Family Court as the proper forum for adoption cases.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, a childless couple, sought to adopt the 4th girl child of respondents 2 and 3. The District Judge dismissed their petition, stating lack of jurisdiction. The appellants appealed, arguing their eligibility as relatives under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellants, being relatives as per the Act, were eligible to adopt the child. It emphasized the proper forum for adoption cases and set aside the District Judge's order, directing the return of records to the petitioners for presentation before the proper court.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the court for adoption cases, eligibility of the appellants as relatives for adoption, and the proper forum for adoption cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants, as relatives under the Juvenile Justice Act, were eligible to adopt the child and emphasized the jurisdiction of the Family Court as the proper forum for adoption cases.

Final Decision: The impugned order passed by the District Judge, Kollam was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The District Court, Kollam was directed to return the records to the petitioners for presentation before the proper court.

JUDGMENT :

This Crl.A has been filed against the order in O.P. (Adoption). No. 75/2016 dated 15.03.2016 of District Court, Kollam. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, respondents 2 and 3 are husband and wife. The 2nd respondent is the brother of the 2nd appellant and 3rd respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. The respondents 2 and 3 are the biological parents of Kumari, Maria Johnson aged 8 years old, who is the 4th girl child of the said couple. The appellants are childless couple; both of them had undergone treatment for infertility for a long period. Doctors confirmed that it will not be possible for the appellants to become biological parent of a child. The 2nd appellant had to undergo uterus removal surgery. Hence, at present there is no chance for the 2nd appellant getting conceived. Kumari. Maria Johnson is the 4th girl child of the respondents 2 and 3. whileso, the respondents 2 and 3 expressed their willingness to give in adoption of Kumari. Maria Johnson to the appellants. Hence, with a view to legalize the entire proceedings, O.P.(Adoption) No. 75/2016 has been filed by the appellants before the District Judge, Kollam. By the impugned order, the learned District Judge dismissed their O.P., finding that the court has no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the issue of adoption mooted by the appellants and aggrieved by the same appellants approach this Court.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to various provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 and Adoption Regulations, 2017.

3. Heard both sides. Section 2(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children), 2015 reads as follows :

    “'adoption' means the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes the lawful child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to a biological child.”

4. Section 2(23) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as follows :

    “Court' means a Civil Court, which has jurisdiction in matters of adoption and guardianship and may include the District Court, Family Court and City Civil Courts.”

5. Section 2(52) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as follows:

    “'relative', in relation to a child for the purpose of adoption under this Act, means a paternal uncle or aunt, or a maternal uncle or aunt, or paternal grandparent or maternal grandparent.”

6. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, being the brother's child of the 2nd appellant, the child supposed to be adopted will come within the definition of 'relative' defined under Section 2(52) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Section 56(2) is also relevant which reads as follows :

    “Adoption of a child from a relative by another relative, irrespective of their religion, can be made as per the provisions of this Act and the adoption regulations framed by the Authority.”

7. Next the learned counsel drew my attention to Section 101(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short the Act) which deals with the appeals and reads thus :

    “Any person aggrieved by an order of the Children's Court may file an appeal before the High Court in accordance with the procedure specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)”

8. So this is the proper forum for entertaining an appeal against the impugned order. The learned counsel drew my attention to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 ( In short the rules). Rule 40(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 reads as follows:

    “For all matters relating to adoption, these rules and guidelines issued from time to time by the State Government and notified by the State Gove

              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 telegram-icon
              whatsapp-icon Back to top