IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

C.O. 3218 of 2024 Jagannath Guha Vs Manju Guha (Paul) and Anr.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Debarshi Brahma, Mr. Saibal Rakshit.

For the Respondent No. 1 : Ms. Sahili Dey.

For the State : Mr. Jayanta Samanta, Mr. Tapas Ballav Mandal.

Judgment reserved on : 10.03.2026 Judgment delivered on : 23.03.2026 SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. The civil revision has been preferred against an order being order no.5 dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Learned District Judge, Nadia in Misc.(Adoption) Case No.27 of 2022 thereby dismissing the application for adoption under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.

2. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 on the findings as follows:-

“Now, in the instant case no where in the four corners of the pleading of this petition it would appear whether the petitioner was previously married with any other woman or whether he has a son by that wife or not. Secondly, the boy in the instant case, as appears from Ext. 5 was born on 02- 05-2008 and the instant case have been filed on 18-04- 2022. It is arithmetically clear that on the date of filing of the instant application the boy was about fourteen years and now the boy is sixteen years. So, that sands as a statutory bar in giving the desired relief to the petitioner. The question may come up that when the application was filed on 18-04-2022 he had not completed the age of fifteen years and due to procedural lapse, the requisite time period has elapsed and now the said boy has crossed the age of fifteen years and is aged about sixteen years but since the order has to be passed by the court on this day when the boy is about sixteen years, I think the said statutory requirement should not be violated. Had it been cured, the earlier observation, as made aforesaid, that there has been no averment of the petitioner with regard to his first marriage, if there be any, or having any son by the said lady or not, could have been taken care of by giving him a chance to amend the petition and his affidavit-in-chief but since there is a statutory bar with regard to allowing the instant petition being violation of Sec. 10 clause (iv), I think giving chance to the petitioner to amend the petition would be an empty formality.

Hence, it is ordered that the instant application be and the same is hereby dismissed.”

3. Section 10 (10) of the HAMA, 1956, requires that a person capable of being taken in adoption, among other requirements, has not completed the age of fifteen years. Admittedly in the present case, when the application for adoption was filed being Misc (Adopt) 27 of 2022, filed on 18.04.2022, the person to be adopted was about 13 years, 11 months, his date of birth being 02.05.2008.

4. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that due to procedural lapse (of Court) the requisite time period has elapsed and as the person has crossed 15 years of age on the date of order, the application was dismissed.

5. So the only point for consideration in the present case is as to whether the petitioner’s right to adoption which existed on the date of filing the application for adoption (child was 13 ½ years old), would extinguish on the date of order passed by the Court, as the child had crossed the age of 15 years

6. In Indian adoption petition no.31 of 2009, the Bombay High Court in its order dated 16.09.2009, in re-adoption of Payal @ Sharinee Vinay Pathak and his wife Sonika Sahay @ Pathak, 2010(1)

BomCR434, decided on: 16.09.2009, held:-

“18. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act came up for consideration before a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0075/2005 : (2005) 3 SCC 551. The Supreme Court held that the Act was not only beneficial legislation but t