Importance of compliance with adoption regulations and ensuring the welfare of the child in the adoption process.

JUDGMENT :

Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

1. Challenge in the present civil revision petition filed by the petitioner applicant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (For short 'the Act of 2015') and Section 12(2) and 17(1) of the Adoption and Regulation Rules, 2017 (For short 'the Rules of 2017'), has been made to the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur, Rajasthan in Civil Misc. Revision No. 189/2019 (Pooran vs. Mr. Rauli Nicolas), whereby the Family Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner applicant under Section 59(7) of the Act of 2015 and Section 12(2) and 17(1) of the Rules of 2017.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner applicant submitted that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is contrary to the facts and the material available on record. Only typographical error, if left or made, does not vitiate the proceedings made by the special adoption agency and the CWC, whereas all the rules and provisions since admission of child, are strictly followed and it is the duty of the agency or CWC to give priority to the welfare of the child. The learned Family Court without looking to the fact that the adoption agency sent a letter to Sarpanch of Vallabhgarh for whereabouts of child grandfather but after putting so many efforts, only the information got that she (child) was migrated from Vallabhgarh but no information has been received about her grandfather. Learned Family Court erred in considering the fact that the special agency complied with the Rules of 2017. The Family Court without looking to the provisions of Adoption and Regulation Rules passed the impugned order and vitiated the proceedings made by the special adoption agency. The Family Court without considering the facts of the case passed the impugned order, whereas the special adoption agency and CWC complied with all the provisions mentioned in Chapter II of the Adoption and Regulation Rules.

3. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the parties have agreed that the concerned authorities may be permitted to adopt de novo procedure for adoption in this matter and the CWC be given liberty to apply afresh.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order passed by the Family Court and also gone through the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.

5. In the instant matter, prospective adoptive parents are non-resident Indian. On request Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr. C.S. Sinha, assisted the Court as an Amicus Curiae. Learned ASG submitted that the Ministry of Women and Child Development has notified the Adoption Regulations, 2017 (For short 'the Regulations of 2017'). The Regulations of 2017 cover the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The learned Judge, Family Court has rightly pointed out the lacuna in the procedure adopted for adoption in this matter.

6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, it reveals that the Child Welfare Committee has not produced the relevant documentary evidence i.e. the copies of relevant documents regarding procedure adopted by the Child Welfare Committee and the other agencies.

7. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur is quashed and set aside. The concerned authorities are permitted to adopt de novo procedure for adoption of the child as per law. In case fresh application in the instant matter is filed by the concerned CWC before the concerned Family Court, it is expected from the concerned Family Court to decide the application afresh without being influenced by the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bharatpur.

8. The present civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly.