IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 adoption proceedings, when civil court, after trial and after hearing witnesses has decreed suit as prayed for, which is nothing but an act aimed at protecting interests of child.

ORDER

Aggrieved by the impugned order in and by which the 3rd respondent rejected the plea of the petitioner to record his name and that of his wife K.Sheela as the father and mother of the child Saatvika, who was taken on adoption from Vijayalakshmi, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he married one K.Sheela on 27.1.2006 as per Hindu Rights and Customs and they have been living as husband and wife ever since. However, out of the matrimonial wedlock, as they were not blessed with a child, they decided to adopt a child and upon coming to know that one Vijayalakshmi had delivered a child on 26.4.2022 at Cluny Hospital, Puducherry and that the said Vijayalakshmi was in absolute penury and expressed her inability to take care of the child, the petitioner, along with his wife, K.Sheela, expressed his desire and willingness adopt the said child from the said Vijayalakshmi, to which the said Vijayalakshmi consented to give the child on adoption.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said Vijayalakshmi was only 18 years old and, therefore, the grandparents of the child, viz., P.Sakarapani and S.Sudha also came forward to give the child in adoption as per Hindu Rites and Customs and, accordingly, after performing “Datta Homam”, which was done by one Dhandapani Sharma, a Prohidar of Shri Selva Vinayagar Temple, Danakodi Nagar, Dharmapuri at Puducherry on 5.5.2022, the child was given in adoption by Vijayalakshmi to the petitioner and his wife K.Sheela.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the biological mother along with her parents had given the child in adoption to the petitioner and his wife and pursuant to the performance of the Hindu Rites and Customs, the petitioner and his wife took the child in adoption and the said act of adoption was also validated by means of a registered Adoption Deed dated 7.9.2022 registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, Puducherry in Doc. No.1595/2022, whereinafter naming ceremony of the child was performed by the petitioner and his wife in the presence of their relatives on 2.10.2022 and the child was christened as ‘K.S.Saatvika’ and she became the adopted the child of the petitioner.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that he owns immovable property to the extent of ¾ grounds and also built a residential house on the said land and, therefore, imposed upon the petitioner to execute a Will or Deed in favour apprehending that the said property will not go to his share. Therefore, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No.189 of 2023 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry, for declaration that the adopted child, K.S.Saatvika is the lawfully adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife, K.Sheela and also sought for an injunction restraining his brother in any manner disputing the status of their adopted daughter so that after the lifetime of the petitioner and his wife, the property will devolve on the adopted daughter and that there would be no question of her status as our daughter. The suit was contested by the brother of the petitioner and also the biological mother and grand-parents of the adopted daughter of the petitioner and the suit, after contest, was decreed in favour of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2023 and no appeal has been filed against the said decree and the same has attained finality and, therefore, there is no iota of doubt that the child is the adopted daughter of the petitioner and his wife K.Sheela.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that the child, which has since been adopted, was born in Cluny Hospital, Puducherry on 26.4.2022, did not bare any name when the certificate was registered and it had only the name of the biological mother. In view of the subsequent developments, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent to issue birth certificate mentioning the name of the child, viz., his adopted daughter and also to incorporate his name and his wife’