The biological parents, i.e. appellant Nos.3 and 4 and

alleged adoptive parents, i.e. appellant Nos.1 and 2 entered

into unregistered agreement of an 'unborn child' in the form of

adoption, jointly filed the present appeal against the judgment

and decree dated 31-5-2022 passed in G & W.C. No.9 of 2021

- 3 -

on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Udupi,

dismissing the petition filed under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of

the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (for short, 'the Act').

I. Facts of the case

2. Appellant Nos.1 and 2 filed the petition before the

trial Court under the provisions of Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of

the G & W Act to grant permission to appoint them as the

adoptive parents and guardians of a minor child, by name

Inshu. Appellants Nos.3 and 4 are the biological parents of the

said child. The child was born on 26-3-2020. Since appellant

Nos.1 and 2 were childless and appellant Nos.3 and 4 were

unable to look after the child due to poverty, appellant Nos.1

and 2 adopted the child. After adoption of the child, appellant

Nos.1 and 2 have looked after raised the child for two years as

their own daughter with love and affection. The respondent-

State represented by Legal-cum-Probation Officer, District Child

Protection Unit, Udupi, lodged a complaint against appellant

Nos.3 and 4 stating that they have illegally sold the child to

appellant Nos.1 and 2. However, the only mistake committed

by appellant Nos.3 and 4, biological parents, and appellant

- 4 -

Nos.1 and 2, adoptive parents, is that due to lack of proper

legal knowledge and guidance, the procedure was not complied

with. Now, the child is in the custody of the respondents/

appellants 3 & 4. Therefore, appellant Nos.1 and 2 are seeking

to appoint them as adoptive parents of the child.

3. The order-sheet of the trial Court dated 25-11-2021

depicts that appellant Nos.3 and 4, biological parents, came up

with their vakalatnama and also filed memo to the effect that

they have no objection for the petition filed by appellant Nos.1

and 2, adoptive parents.

4. In order to prove the case of appellant Nos.1 and 2,

appellant No.1 examined herself as P.W.1 and marked four

documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4(a). No evidence was

adduced on behalf of appellant Nos.3 and 4, who are

respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the trial Court.

5. Learned Judge of the trial Court upon careful perusal

of the pleadings has framed the following issue:

- 5 -

"Whether the petitioners are entitled for permission

to

appoint

them

as

adoptive

parents

and

guardian of the person of minor Inshu as

contemplated under Sections 7 to 10 and 25 of the

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, as prayed for

them in their petition?"

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

on record, the learned trial Judge, by judgment and decree

dated 31-5-2022 dismissed the petition. Hence, the present

appeal is filed.

7. We have heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel

for the appellants, Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, learned Additional

Government Advocate, along with Sri Kiran Kumar, learned

High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State.

8. On 23-11-2022, this Court requested Sri Vijayakumar

A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate, along with

Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader, to

assist the Court with reference to the Rules made by the State

Government under Section 35 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

- 6 -

II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellants

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that

the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

dismissing the petition filed by appellant Nos.1 and 2 to appoint

them as adoptive parents and guardians is erroneous and the

same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. She has

further contended that the trial Court failed in appreciating the

sanctity of the fact that the adoptive parents of the child and