Adopt, enjoy, return - Welcome to India

 To,

The Hon’ble Court and Ld. Members of the bar,

 

Respectfully Stated,

I am writing to highlight the recent judgment dated 25.01.24 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the adoption matter of Bal Asha Trust. The impugned orders are as attached.

 

Factual background:

The court had allowed the prayer to adopt a minor child (born on 10.05.20) of about 3.5 years vide order dated 17.08.23.

 

The court had ordered, "1. That the Prospective Adoptive Parents be given the said child in Adoption be declared as parents and have all parental legal rights, Privileges and responsibilities."

The adoptive parents had also promised to invest 2 lacs in the name of the child.

 

Within 3 months, the adoptive parents wanted to back out of their promise of adoption and "return the child" after observing some minor health issues with the child. The Hon'ble High Court agreed to annul the adoption vide order dated 25.01.24 and also allowed the 2 lacs rs. invested in the name of the child to be returned back.

 

Grounds

1. Both the adoption and annulment orders were passed claiming welfare of the child but it seems the welfare of everybody except the child has been upheld. The child was abandoned by biological parents first and now by the adopted parents. The child remains on the street (figuratively) with zero assets to guarantee his future safety.

 

2. It is not wrong to say that the adopted parents have effectively played with the life of the child, used him as a toy for a few months and when they ran out of curiosity, they have wanted to return the child. It is anybody's guess how fairly they treat their own daughter and if they would want to return their biological daughter also in future if she behaves similarly.

 

3. The chances of adoption of the child have reduced in the last 6 months as children mature quickly and the 3-4 year age period is quite transformative. At 3 years, he would not have known of his past. At 4 years, he would always remember this family and these parents. The news of naughty behavior of Master Ganesh has also made further adoption difficult. 

 

4. The pain of the child in getting separated from a family is not considered at all. Even the report mentions that the child bonded with the parents and his sibling. It is highly traumatizing for the child to back to orphanage from such an environment.

 

5. The adoptive parents did not just get the rights and privileges but also the responsibilities which they have conveniently missed out. It was their responsibility to help the child grow up in a safe and loving environment and to help the child overcome any challenges in his life. It was their responsibility to treat the adopted child at par with biological child. The adoptive parents should have known what it means to be a father and a mother and the challenges it brings. They already had a daughter, so their ignorance cannot be presumed. 

 

6. It is absolutely shocking that even the 2 lacs that were invested in the child's name were returned back. This means that they do not even get to pay for the toy which they enjoyed & then abused by abandoning after several months.

 

7. The undersigned acknowledges that no one can replace the natural love and affection that only a biological parent is capable of providing and it will never equal the love of adoptive parents. Thus, if the adoptive parents are found unsuitable or not willing to take up the responsibility, then the interest of the child may be better served by staying away from such adoptive parents but the adopting parents need to be held accountable for their actions. They cannot be let go without any consequences. The above order dated 25.01.24 has gravely failed to protect the rights and interests of the child.

 

PRAYERS:

It is thus most respectfully prayed that:

 

1. Set aside the direction of Hon'ble High Court to return the 2 lacs promised at time of adoption and which should be continued to be invested in the name of the child.

 

2. An additional amount to be invested in the name of the child because the child had got the right to assets and earnings of his father and such right may not be taken away without the consent of the child until he turns 18. I pray for an additional amount not less than 10 lacs to compensate for the trauma to the child due to losing parents again. The adoptive parents seem capable of affording such an amount and it is reasonable for the future of the child. 

 

3. Direct the adoptive parents to contribute an amount equivalent to their monthly expenditure on their biological daughter until the child finds new prospective parents whether it takes 10 days or 10 years. This will enable the child to go to the same school and have the same stuff that he would have got except a set of loving parents which is compensated by 2. above.

 

4. Blacklisting the couple from adopting any other child.

 

5. Let the State promise to pay for the education of the child ('scholarship') until 18 even if he gets adopted which would also make the child more appealing for the new parents.

 

6. Appoint a bank/financial institution as guardian of the assets of the child which would release money at regular intervals under the supervision of the court to guarantee that the assets of the child never gets misused.

 

 7. Formulate guidelines to protect the interests of abandoned children, adopted children, children caught in matrimonial disputes and crossfire.

 

I pray the Hon’ble Court to take suo-moto cognizance of the matter and do the needful to protect the interests of the child. The Ld. members of the bar and other authorities are requested to assist the court 




CNR No. :-HCBM020203582023
Neutral Citation No.:-2024:BHC-OS:1809
Lodging No. :-IAPL/20350/2023
Filing Date :-26/07/2023
Reg. No. :-IAP/20/2023
Reg. Date :-11/08/2023
Petitioner :-
Respondent :-
Petn.Adv. :-
District :- MUMBAIBench :- SINGLE
Status :- Disposed
Category :- IAP(GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT)
Disp. Date :- 17/08/2023Disp.Type :- DISPOSED OFF
Disp.By :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA
Last Date:-25/01/2024Stage :- AT 2.30 P.M.
Last Coram :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA
Act :- Guardian and Wards Act
Under Section :-1

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Maharashtra police rules as defined in  Bombay Police Manual, 1959, Volume III [referred as The Manual below],   defines two types of police reports which can be submitted to the magistrate by police u/s 173(2) of CrPC. It is the report of police investigation filed at the end of investigation.. a. Charge-sheets (Rule 218 of The Manual) and  b. Final Reports (Rule 219 of Police Manual).  Final report is explained under Rule 219 of The Manual. Rule 219 of The Manual: 219. Final Reports .- (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of an offence on a Police report through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, as the case may be, in the following three class...
Read more

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Judgment Name : YASHITA SAHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS  Citation Code :   (2020) 3 SCC 67 Judgment link :  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28083/28083_2019_15_1501_19699_Judgement_20-Jan-2020.pdf Court : Supreme Court of India Case Type : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  127 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7390 OF 2019) Judge : Hon'ble Justice Sh. Deepak Gupta  (author of judgment) Hon'ble Justice Sh. Aniruddha Bose Summary: This judgment talks about  1) Court treats the child as "human" which is shocking (sarcasm :|) and talks about the human rights of a child to get love and affection from both Parent. It talks about the rights of a parent as well as the rights of a child to get "s ufficient visitation rights" . 2) If any court denies the visitation to a parent, a strong reason should also be assigned and can be justified only unde...
Read more

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

  Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 are repository of the power to grant injunction.  An order of injunction is always passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 Order 39 save and except rare orders passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 do not use the words "interim or ad interim". These are the words coined by the lawyers and the courts merely to indicate the stage at which orders are passed.  Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal.  Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.  Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.  It is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issu...
Read more