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
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 :
4. Section 2(23) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as follows :
5. Section 2(52) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 reads as follows:
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 :
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 :
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:
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 ....
(1) Statutory requirements - Competent Court was required to verify whether the statutory requirements were complied with and, after scrutinising the record of the proceedings, form an opinion as to ....
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 protec....
The issuance of a birth certificate for an adopted child under Hindu law cannot be denied based on juvenile justice regulations if the adoption complies with applicable personal law, emphasizing the ....
(1) Adoption – Concept of adoption is only to facilitate permanent care and protection of child within walls of a family.(2) Allegation of collusion cannot be basis for court to interfere with adopti....
A petition for adoption becomes infructuous and is liable to be dismissed once the child attains majority.
The court emphasized the importance of considering and applying the relevant legal provisions, such as those in the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulation, in transnational adoption cases.
The consent of a biological father, who is a rape convict, is not required for the adoption of a child born to a minor rape victim, affirming the mother's right to give the child up for adoption.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.