A child who has been abandoned by his parents and is brought up as a Hindu can be given in adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

It is true today, as it was ever before, that no person can look after the welfare of the children in a better way than parents. Destiny, however, has its own ways to mould the course of life of a person.

2. The present case concerns itself with the welfare of a child who appears to be deprived of the natural care and protection of his parents for the reasons beyond his control. The State, the Society and its Institutions, must, therefore, work in tandem to salvage the situation so that the luckless child is empowered to swim through the rough tides, where destiny has left him unattended.

3. These proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek to assail the validity of the judgment dated 22.10.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.9, Lucknow in Misc. Case No.138 of 2014, whereby application made by the applicants seeking court s permission to give Master Ansh in adoption as required under Section 9 (4) and (5) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Hindu Adoptions Act) has been ordered to be proceeded in terms of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Juvenile Justice Act). The application made by the applicants seeking permission to give the child in adoption under the Hindu Adoptions Act has, thus, been rejected.

4. The facts of the case, which are necessary for appreciating the issue involved in the present petition, as culled from the pleadings available on record of the case, are that the opposite party No.3, who is a deaf and dumb woman and is known by the name of Maina (name given to her by the State Women Protection Home), was admitted in District Women Hospital, Allahabad on 11.09.2013 in advance stage of pregnancy. At the time of her admission in the hospital at Allahabad, she was unaccompanied, deserted and abandoned. On 11.09.2013, she gave birth to a male child, namely, Master Ansh. Opposite party No.3 with her son was brought and admitted to State Women Protection Home, Lucknow on 18.10.2013.

5. In a Habeas Corpus petition bearing No. 594 (H/C) of 2012, this Court appointed a Committee for monitoring the work of Women Protection Home which, on the basis of a visit to the Protection Home on 15.07.2014, prepared an inspection report and submitted the same to this Court in the aforesaid Habeas Corpus petition. The Committee brought certain points as suggestive measures in the interest of the inmates of Protection Home, to the notice of this Court through the report. One of the suggestions made by the said Committee was in respect of two deaf and dumb women inmates who have infant children with them. The relevant portion of the report of the said Committee appointed by this Court is as under :-

'Two deaf and dumb inmates of the institution have infant children with them. Name not known alias Naina (deaf and dumb) has one year old daughter Lovely and name not known alias Maina has a nine month old son Ansh. Deaf and Dumb inmates are unable to tell their home, so it is not possible to send them home. Naina is not looking after her child and sometime tries to kill her when she disturbs her. Other inmates are taking care of the children. Since this is a female institution the child has to be shifted to Bal Grih Shishu when he grows old. They communicated us with gestures that their children may be given to some person.'

Since the children are living with their biological parent, so they doesn’t come under the purview of the CWC and would not follow the channel of adoption through CWC. Instead they may be given in adoption, if required under HAMA. Though we are of the opinion that since parents are not in a position to provide them training for day-to-day chores and large life ahead, if parents are willing to give them to someone else, then it would be better in interest of the children.

6. This Court in the aforesaid Habeas Corpus petition No. 594 of 2012 i