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

2022 Supreme(Ori) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K. MOHAPATRA, J.
Nissan Shalom Children Home (SAA) – Appellant
versus
xxx xxxx xxxx – Respondent
CRLREV No.375 of 2021
Decided on : 22-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Dwarika Prasad Mohanty, P.K. Swain, M. Pal and R. Mohanty
For the Respondent: Mr. Aswini Kumar Mohanty, Mr. K.K. Nayak

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.

Headnote:

Adoption - Transnational Adoption - Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 - Section 38, 58(3), 59(7) - Adoption Regulation, 2017 - Rule 16(2)

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's institution sought permission for the transnational adoption of a minor female child who was declared legally free for adoption. The District Judge rejected the petition, prompting the petitioner to file a revision petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Judge had misdirected himself, overlooked relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, and acted on emotions and apprehensions. The court set aside the impugned judgment and granted permission for the adoption, with specific reporting and monitoring requirements.

Issues: The issues revolved around the District Judge's misdirection, emotional decision-making, and failure to consider the relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Regulation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the misdirection and emotional decision-making of the District Judge, as well as the failure to consider the relevant legal provisions governing transnational adoption.

Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and permission was granted for the transnational adoption of the minor female child, with specific reporting and monitoring requirements.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the impugned order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the District Judge, Gajapati at Paralakhemundi passed in Adoption Misc. Case No.03 of 2020 under Annexure-1 rejecting the adoption of minor female child, namely, xxxx xxxx, who is presently under the care and custody of the petitioner’s institution NISSAN Shalom Children Home (Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA)), located at Biswanath Nagar, Paralakhemundi in the district of Ganjam.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the factual backdrop of the present case, is that the petitioner’s institution is a registered and recognized agency working in the field of Child and Social Welfare in the district of Gajapati wherein destitute and relinquished children are rehabilitated. The minor female child, namely, xxxx xxxx, whose adoption is the subject matter of adjudication in the present revision petition, is presently under the care and custody of the petitioner’s institution. The female child in question sought to be adopted as an abandoned/orphan child aged about 10 years as she was born on 11.09.2011. Further she was declared legally free for adoption by the district Child Welfare Committee, Gajapati under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice Act. It is also stated that no guardian has yet been appointed for the said child and therefore, permission of the Court is sought for in her adoption under Section 58(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short ‘the JJ Act, 2015’).

3. The Opposite Party No.1, namely, Miss Maria Teresa Sanchez Anguita, who is a single parent and a citizen of Spain at present working as Administrative Assistant in the Legal Consultancy at Universodad de Castilla La Mancha UCLM Calle Altagracia, Coidad Real Spain expressed her intention to adopt the female child named hereinabove. The Opposite Party No.1, who desires to adopt a child, accordingly approached the agency concerned, after meeting the female child in question. She developed a weakness for the child and decided to adopt the child in question. Accordingly, she has submitted her application after completion of all legal formalities under J.J. Act, 2015. The Prospective Adoptive Parent (PAP) (Opposite Party No.1) was also found eligible and suitable to adopt the child by Foreign Care Agency, namely, ‘NINOS SIN FRONTERAS’(translated into English ‘CHILDREN WITHOUT FRONTIERS’). It is further stated in the petition that the Opposite Party submitted her home study report prepared as per the law. The foreign adoption agency involved in the process has also been approved by the appropriate Central Authority under the Juvenile Justice Act.

4. It is apt to mention here that the Opposite Party No.1 was also found eligible by the Central Adoption Resources Authority (CARA) as per provisions contained under Section 57 of the Juvenile Justice Act and Regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulation. After completion of the legal formalities, CARA has also issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of the proposed adoption as per Regulation 58 of the Adoption Regulation. All other necessary undertaking having been submitted by the Opposite Party for the post-adoption follow ups like the ascertainment of the progress and well being of the child in the adoptive family as has been stipulated under Section 59(11) of the J.J. Act, 2015, the Specialized Agency i.e. the present petitioner submitted a petition before the District Judge, Gajapati at Parlakhemundi under Section 59(7) of the Juvenile Justice Act read with Regulation 12(2) and 17(1) of the Adoption Regulation.

5. The petition which was filed before the District Judge, Gajapati seeking permission for transnational adoption was made under Section 59(7) of the J.J. Act read with the relevant provision of the adoption regulation. The petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.1 submitted all relevant documents in support of their claim to adopt the child in question. Learned District J

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 Back to top