JUDGME NT

This appeal is preferred against the order dated 03.11.2025 made in G.W.O.P. No.42 of 2025 on the file of the District Judge of Nagapattinam.

2. The appellants have filed an application under Section 9 read with 11 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to declared the appellants / petitioners as guardians of minor child, namely Joewin Madharasi.

3. According to the appellants, the former husband of the 2^nd respondent, namely Athees had deserted and abandoned her in the year of 2016 with a daughter. Being a sympathetic soul, the 1^st respondent has been maintaining the 2^nd respondent and her fatherless daughter from the year 2024 and leading life with the 2^nd respondent as live in relationship. Out of their nuptial life, the 2^nd respondent begot a female child, namely, Joewin Madharasi. The 1^st respondent is already having 2 children independently out of his earlier marriage. The respondents, with good intention to promote their child with health and wealth and high education, had given their consent to give permanent custody of their child Joewin Madharasi to the appellants as her guardians without any consideration, coercion or force with free will, knowledge and consent. The respondents had also given the custody of the child to the appellants on 11.06.2025 and to that effect a deed was executed between them one month before and the same was notarized. From that day onwards, the appellants are taking utmost care as natural parents.

4. The respondents have filed a petition in I.A No. 1/2025 under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC to record the respondents consent. In the said petition, they have stated that they received the notice about the petition filed by the appellants for permanent custody and appointment of Guardian in respect of the Minor child. Further they have stated that there is no collusion, coercion and considerations in this regard and also there will be no prejudice caused to any of them including the Minor.

5. However, the learned District Judge, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants by holding that the Christian Personal Law does not permit for adoption and that the appellants / petitioners have to file an application for adoption as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and further held that the child was born on 05.05.2025 at District Head Quarters Hospital, Kumbakonam, and therefore, the District Court, Nagapattinam, has no jurisdiction to entertain the said petition. Further it was held that the natural guardians cannot be termed as unfit as contemplated under Section 19(b) of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants / petitioners would submit that, the court below failed to consider the incapability of the respondents to bring up the minor child and also failed to see that the appellants / petitioners are economically in better status. While so, the trial court erroneously dismissed the petition filed by the appellants, warrants interference by this Court. 7. Admittedly the appellants have filed the petition under Section 9 read with 11 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, praying to declare the petitioners as guardians of minor Joewin Madharasi, aged about 3 months at the time of filing the petition, having born on 05.05.2025 and by religion of Christian and in the custody of the appellants.

8. The personal law of Christians does not recognise adoption and, here too, an adoption can take place from an orphanage by obtaining permission from the Court under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. A Christian has no adoption law. Since adop