J U D G M E N T

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J The revision petitioners in this case claim that they are the adoptive parents of the minor child born to Rani and Kumar on 17.10.2015 as evident from Annexure A2. They adopted the child through an adoption deed executed by the biological parents as evident from Annexure A1. The revision petitioners approached this Court challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Child Welfare Committee (For short CWC)

Malappuram dated 31.05.2019.

2. The Child Welfare Committee initiated proceedings based on the report of the Childline, Malappuram. In the impugned proceedings, it was found that the transfer of the child by way of adoption was not justifiable as per law related to adoption and a police enquiry is warranted in the matter. However, taking note of the bondage between the adopted child and the revision petitioners, the revision petitioners were given the interim custody. Challenging the proceedings, this revision petition has come up before this Court invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Sec.102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

3. According to the revision petitioners, the adoption was completed under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and therefore, the proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 would not apply in this matter. Therefore, it is submitted before this Court that the proceedings initiated under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is illegal and unsustainable.

4. At the time of admission, an interim stay was granted as against the proceedings of the CWC and allowed the revision petitioners to keep the custody of the child.

5. Taking note of the importance of the questions involved in this matter, we appointed Adv. Bindu B, as per order dated 15.07.2021, as an Amicus Curiae to assist this Court.

6. Amicus Curiae filed a detailed report appending the judgment of this Court as well as the Apex Court. According to the Amicus Curiae, the adoption deed is per se illegal and cannot confer any right to the revision petitioners as adoptive parents. According to her, procedure as contemplated under Secs.7 to 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was not followed in this matter.

7. On a glance of the adoption deed, we are of the view that the procedure as referred under Secs.7 to 9 were not followed. As seen from Sec.7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, consent of the mother of the child has to be obtained except in the circumstances referred to in the proviso to Sec.7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption deed in this matter was executed between the biological father and the adoptive father of the child wihtou the consent of the biological mother. In the light of mandate under Sec.7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, such deed cannot confer any right to the adoptive parents.

8. Taking note of the illegality of Annexure A1, we passed the following order on 5.08.2021:

“Read order dated 15.7.2021.

2. Heard the learned amicus curie.

3. The learned amicus curie submits that adoption resorted cannot be legalised either under the Juvenile Justice Act or under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is submitted that any handing over the child without recourse to the procedure referable under the Juvenile Justice Act and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by way of adoption is illegal. The learned amicus curie also placed a written note before us.

4. The Child Welfare Committee, Malappuram ordered the interim custody of the child with his parents till 14.6.2019. Thereafter, based on the orders of this Court the petitioners retained the child with them. 5. After adverting to Section 37(1)(d) of the Juvenile Justice Act, we are of the view that the committee has necessary power to order placement of the child with a fit person for a long term or temporary care. Though the petitioners are not legally adoptive pare