Bombay High Court
Shilpa Anil Badgujar And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
919-WP-748-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 748 OF 2025
(Shilpa Anil Badgujar & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
__________________________________________________________________________
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar with Mr. Gursharan Singh, Counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. A.B. Badar, A.P.P. for respondent nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6/State.
Ms K. Pathak, Counsel for respondent no.2.
Mr. J.S. Mokadam, Counsel for respondent no.7.
.....
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
OCTOBER 16, 2025
Leave to delete prayer Clauses (ii) and (iii)
is granted.
2] On 15/10/2025, following order was
passed :
"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.
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 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.
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."
3] Ms K. Pathak, learned Counsel for
respondent no.2, submits that the guidelines of Central
Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) will be applicable,
and the petitioners and respondent no.7 should undergo
the procedure.
4] At this stage, we are informed that
respondent no.4 - CARA is not yet served. Notice to CARA
is awaited.
5] We permit the petitioners to serve CARA
through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. In such
eventuality, the petitioners shall file affidavit of service.
6] We have, however, doubt whether the
scheme under CARA will be applicable in a matter, where
biological mother is willing to give child in adoption in
terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions And
Maintenance Act, 1956.
7] Nonetheless, we leave the option of
procedural aspect open, and if required, the petitioners
and respondent no.7 shall follow the procedure to
validate the adoption.
8] However, for the reasons noted in our order
dated 15/10/2025 and the reasons assigned by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Leelendra Deju
Shetty & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
[Criminal Writ Petition No. 2487/2024], we hereby grant
interim custody of child Swaransh to the petitioners.
Respondent no.2 is directed to hand over custody of child
Swaransh to the petitioners forthwith and latest by
17/10/2025.
9] List in the week commencing from
17/11/2025.
10] All concerned shall act upon an
authenticated/ uploaded copy of the order.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
Sumit
Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/10/2025 15:12:43
