Bombay High Court
Shilpa Anil Badgujar And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
(1) 912crwp748.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.748/2025
Shilpa Anil Badgujar and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. A. B. Badar, A.P.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6.
Mr. J. S. Mokadam, Advocate for respondent No.7.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 15, 2025.
Heard.
On 16.09.2025, following order was passed:
"Heard.
2. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the
petitioners have adopted child delivered by
respondent No.7. The adoption deed in the form of
'No Objection Certificate was executed to that effect
on 28.05.2024. The child "Swaransh" was then 13
months.
3. Thereafter, First Information Report came to be
lodged on 05.04.2023 vide Crime No. 235/2023 for
the offences punishable under Sections 363, 370, 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960.
The prime accused is said to be Ayesha Khan and
Rekha Pujari. Both have been arrested. The charge-
sheet is now filed.
4. The child was delivered at Meyo Hospital,
Nagpur, and child was handed over to petitioners by
respondent No.7 through Rekha Pujari. The
petitioners were unaware of what transpired between
respondent No.7 and Rekha Pujari.
5. The petitioner got married on 14.04.2012, but
for some reasons, petitioner No.2 could not conceive.
They were desperate to adopt the child. Therefore,
without due diligence and believing Rekha Pujari,
they adopted the child. They were taking due care of
the child and were acting for his welfare.
(2) 912crwp748.25
6. Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the
biological mother and adopted parents, have both
willingly executed the adoption deed and, therefore,
custody of child which investigating officer has
handed over to respondent No.2 Shri Shradhanand
Anathalaya, Nagpur, is illegal.
7. The petitioners so also respondent No.7 are
present. Respondent No.7 submits that she has
willing given the child in adoption to the petitioners.
8. Issue notice to the respondents returnable in
two weeks.
9. Learned APP waives notice for
respondents/State."
2. We have gone through the adoption deed-cum-no
objection certificate. It is executed by respondent No.7, who is
biological mother of the child on one side and petitioner No.1 and
her husband on the other.
3. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.7 are present before
the Court. As noted in order dated 16.09.2025, respondent No.7 is
willing to give the child in adoption to the petitioners. She is now
represented by the counsel and has maintained her stand. During the
course of argument, what transpired is that respondent No.7's
husband expired long back. The child under question is delivered out
of the relationship between respondent No.7 and her friend Santosh.
4. We are informed that respondent No.7 and Santosh are
now separated. Respondent No.7 is working as labour and is not in a
position to maintain the child. Whereas, petitioner No.1 and her
husband earn annual income of Rs.6,00,000/- approximately. There
is no allegation that they were not taking care of the child. Rather
they were affectionate to the child.
5. Learned A.P.P. submits that the custody of child has been
handed over to respondent No.2 in terms of order dated 17.04.2023
passed by the Child Welfare Committee, constituted under the
(3) 912crwp748.25
provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015. He submits that the said order has been not challenged,
therefore, custody cannot be said to be illegal.
6. Mr. Bhandarkar, learned counsel for petitioners, has
invited our attention to judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court at Principal Seat in Leelendra Deju Shetty and anr. .Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.; [Criminal Writ Petition
No.2487/2024], wherein, in identical set of facts, the Division Bench
has, after going through the provisions of the Act of 2015, held in
paragraph 28 as under:
"28. We are fortified by the aforesaid observations in
concluding that since all the three children before us
cannot be termed as 'orphan' or 'abandoned' and, they
do not fall in the category of the children in need of
care and protection, as defined in Section 2(14) of
the Act of 2015, the orders passed by CWC handing
over their custody to Respondent No.3 is illegal, as
CWC was not competent to exercise jurisdiction over
the said children and transfer the children to
Respondent No.3-Baal Asha Trust.
Since the biological parents are not coming
forward to claim custody of these children and on the
other hand, since we have noticed that the Petitioners
were having custody of these children and,
particularly, the Petitioner - NVS Rajesh and the
Petitioner- Azharuddin Naushad Shaikh allegedly
adopted the girl and boy child respectively aged, six
days old and they have taken them in their embrace
and, since then the infants have been part of their
family."
7. The Division Bench, thereafter granted leave to the
petitioner to adopt the child by following the prescribed procedure
for continuing the custody of the child by having independently
executing the adoption deed or by following other legal procedure.
Accordingly, the custody was handed over to the petitioner.
(4) 912crwp748.25
8. In the present case, even biological mother is present
before the Court and had shown willingness to give her child to the
petitioners in adoption.
9. In the circumstances, we intend to follow the same course
as has been followed by the Coordinate Bench. We, however, grant
an opportunity to the respondent No.2 to make submissions on the
point.
10. Stand over to 16.10.2025.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Kahale
