Delhi High Court
Jose Solomon & Anr. vs Central Adoption Resource ... on 15 March, 2021
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2021 11:25:48
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th March, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3187/2021
J S & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Samar Bansal, Mr. Kartik
Nagarkatti and Mr. Sachin Mishra,
Advocates (M: 9452707381).
versus
CENTRAL ADOPTION RESOURCE AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for
Union of India.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 9663/2021 (for directions)
1. Considering the nature of this matter, the names of the Petitioners as
also the child, shall not be mentioned in full and they shall only be referred
to by their initials. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
CM APPL. 9664/2021 (for exemption)
2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is
disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3187/2021 and CM APPL. 9662/2021 (for interim relief)
3. The Petitioners have approached this Court challenging the impugned
communication dated 10th July, 2020, issued by the Central Adoption
Resource Authority (hereinafter "CARA"). Vide the impugned order,
CARA has rejected the prayer of the Petitioners for issuance of a No
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2021 11:25:48
Objection Certificate (hereinafter, "NOC") in order to enable the adoptive
parents to obtain a passport for the child.
4. The brief background of this matter is that the Petitioners adopted a
minor child, who was born on 11th December, 2014, from Ferozepur Punjab,
through the cousin of Petitioner No. 2 who was working as Ferozepur
District Coordinator of Social Work in an organisation. The biological
parents of the child got the legal formalities done for completion of adoption
of the child with the Petitioners by preparing an adoption deed which was
signed and executed between the biological and the adoptive parents of the
child. The said adoption deed was duly witnessed by the village sarpanch as
well as the relative - social worker and was also registered on 18th
December, 2014 under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.
5. The adoptive parents are US citizens and the family of the adoptive
parents resides in Kerala. The child, has since the adoption been living in
Kerala, with grandparents, as the adoptive parents have been unable to
obtain a passport for the child till date. The child herself is more than 6 years
of age and the Petitioners are stated to be visiting her regularly, on an annual
basis, and are also in touch with her through electronic platforms
6. Various steps were taken by the adoptive parents for seeking a
declaration of parenthood, including the filing of a civil suit, bearing number
CS/680/2016, before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Ferozepur, seeking a declaration to the effect that the Child is the adopted
daughter of the Petitioners. However, the said Court refused to grant the said
relief of declaration, as sought for by the Petitioner on the ground that the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, does not apply to Christians.
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2021 11:25:48
7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that in order to obtain a passport for
the child, they were advised to approach CARA, to get an NOC. The
application of the Petitioners for obtaining the said NOC was submitted on
27th October, 2016. The said request for NOC has now been rejected by the
impugned communication. It is submitted that in addition, apart from
rejection of the NOC, the authorities also appear to be taking steps for
initiating an action against the adoptive parents, the relative who helped in
the adoption, and also the grand parents of the adopted child.
8. Mr. Bansal, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the manner in
which the authorities are proceedings clearly shows that the same is contrary
to law. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in PKH v. Central Adoption
Resource Authority (W.P.(C) 5718/2015, decided on 18th July 2016), to
argue that there has to be a mechanism in place for enabling the adoption of
the Christian child, and it is not in dispute that the adoption deed was duly
executed in front of village sarpanch and was also registered. It is submitted
that in absence of any other statute governing such adoptions, the adoption
was registered under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956 (`HAMA').
9. He further submits that the mere fact that the adoption deed was
registered under HAMA, ought not to be used to invalidate the legality of
the adoption, as the child is happily living with his grandparents and is in
complete protection and care of the adoptive parents. He submits that the
initiation of action would cause enormous prejudice to the Petitioners.
Accordingly, the Petitioners also seek interim relief to the effect of no
coercive actions during the pendency of this petition.
10. The present petition raises an issue of enormous importance as it
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2021 11:25:48
relates to a legal vacuum in respect of adoptions carried out prior to the
coming into force of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of children)
Model Rules, 2016, framed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2015, in respect of a child born to Christian parents, as in
the present case. Moreover, a perusal of letter dated 2nd March 2020 shows
that an Action Taken Report has been called for, at the behest of CARA,
from the District Programme Officer, Ferozepur on the following issues:
a) Any action initiated against RS (Nun) E LFRC of Sh. MS
b) Any action initiated against Mr. JS and Mrs. MS
c) Present status of the child named JJS
d) Whether the Mother Teresa Home still working in your
district and Sh. MS
e) Any counselling sessions conducted with biological parents
of the child i.e., Mr. M and Mrs. M
11. The above communication has clearly nudged that action ought to be
taken by the authorities, in respect of the adoption. The welfare of the child
is paramount in such cases and the validity of the rejection of the NOC by
CARA is to be examined by the Court.
12. Issue notice. Mr. Arnav Kumar accepts notice on behalf of
Respondent No. 2- Union of India. None appears for CARA, despite
advance copy being served.
13. Let notice be served upon CARA through e-mail, as also by a letter by
the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner along with a copy of the petition. Let
counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be
filed within two weeks thereafter.
14. List on 22nd April, 2021. In the meantime, no coercive measures shall
be taken pursuant to the letter dated 2nd March, 2020 against the Petitioners,
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:17.03.2021 11:25:48
the child, their relatives, or any person who facilitated the adoption of Ms.
JJS by the Petitioners.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
MARCH 15, 2021
MR/Ak
