KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Ravi Kumar C. and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Central Adoption Resource
Authority and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.17967 of 2023 (GM - RES)
Decided on 26.3.2024
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 58, 60 and 63 – Adoption Regulations, 2017 – Regulation 23 – Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) – Cross-border adoption of child – Petitioners are husband and wife; citizens of India – Presently they are in Nairobi, Kenya – Petitioners are not the ones who are asking for legalizing an illegal adoption – They are the ones asking recognition of a legalized adoption under Regulations of the Nation – They have in their arm complete legal process in High Court of Uganda qua their right over the child – If rights of parties have been conclusively determined, those orders would become implementable through Courts of the nation – Rights of parties are determined by Courts at Uganda – If petitioners’ rights are determined and they are as on today citizens of this Country, orders would enure to benefit of petitioners – Petitioners are entitled to relief that they have sought for in petition – Mandamus issued to Central Adoption Resource Authority directing it to consider representation of petitioners. (Paras 13, 16 and 17)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER
The petitioners/husband and wife are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners through electronic mail and redress the grievance. The grievance is concerning cross-border adoption of a child.
2. Sans details, facts in brief germane are as follows:-
The petitioners are husband and wife; citizens of India. Presently they are in Nairobi, Kenya. The husband is working as Vice-President, Africa in Intellect Design Arena Limited, Nairobi. The wife is a software Engineer working in Kenya. The petitioners between 2011 and 2018 were residents of Uganda and later shifted to Kenya from 2019 and even today they hold Indian passport as they have not renounced Indian citizenship. During the time they were staying in Uganda, the petitioners became desirous of adopting a child and in such pursuit of adoption, after following all due procedures took steps with the prevailing law in Uganda to get a child which matched them. The child who was taken in adoption on 12-08-2014 is Master Kris Bright Kumar. The petitioners then filed an application before the jurisdictional Family and Children Court at Makindye, Kampala, Uganda seeking conferment of a care order under the applicable laws of Uganda. The concerned Court grants the care of the child in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the High Court of Uganda in Family division grants guardianship of the child in favour of the petitioners as on 20-07-2015. It is averred that the child is in the care of the petitioners and undergoing schooling at Kampala. The petitioners then filed an application for formal adoption before the High Court of Uganda, again under the applicable laws. It is declared by the concerned Court at Uganda that the petitioners are adoptive parents of the child and were granted all consequential rights upon the petitioners over the child.
3. The petitioners then desirous of adoption to become formal in India, in order to conduct their actions in compliance with the Regulations, preferred an application before the 1st respondent –Central Adoption Resource Authority (‘CARA’ for short) to grant legal sanctity in India for the said adoption in the light of both the petitioners being Indian citizens as of today. This is not acceded to by accepting or rejecting in answer to mails communicated by the husband/1st petitioner. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus.
4. Heard Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that inter-country adoption is a recognized norm pursuant to Hague Convention of 1995. Uganda is not a signatory to Hague Convention. Therefore, CARA Regulations or the Juvenile Justice Act does not impede the process of adoption to be regularized in this country when the child is at the receiving country pursuant to Hague Convention. It is his submission that India being a signatory to Hague Convention cannot deny regularization of adoption. He would submit that lacunae in the law be filled up by an order of this Court, as it is a circumstance that has never arisen before any Court of law.
6. Per-contra, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India Sri H.Shanthi Bhushan would take this Court through the statement of objections to contend that the Government is not wanting to jeopardize the rights of the petitioners or render the child illegal without legalizing the adoption. He would seek that the objections would indicate that the parents would be issued a support letter. A support letter would be enough in the circumstances for necessary entry and exit into the shores of the nation. He would submit that if the procedure is appropriately followed, a no object
Cross-border adoption of child is permissible if petitioners are having valid Court orders.
Post-2022 HAMA relative adoption by parents with foreign citizenship treated as expatriate: District Magistrate verifies under Reg 69, Authority issues NOC under Reg 70 without receiving country prio....
Inter-country adoptions under HAMA require a No Objection Certificate from CARA, and the Juvenile Justice Act does not apply to such direct adoptions, creating a need for procedural clarity.
The Juvenile Justice Act does not cover adoption procedures for foreign citizens, emphasizing the necessity of local law compliance for such adoptions.
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 court determined that valid adoption requires adherence to statutory procedures, emphasizing that improper procedures invalidate adoption claims, stressing child welfare and anti-trafficking laws....
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.