The mere execution of a notarized doc, which gives for an adoption deed, doesn’t give a proper to custody: Bombay Excessive Courtroom

The Bombay Supreme Court recently refused permission for a couple to hold a two-year-old child on the basis of a “notarized adoption deed”.

A bench of judges SS Shinde and Manish Pitale ruled,

“We believe that by simply executing a notarized document that is supposed to be an adoption deed, the petitioners cannot claim that they have the right to retain custody of the girl.”

The petitioner, who claimed the child was adoptive parents, turned to the High Court to seek a habeas corpus after the child was taken away by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

They claimed that they adopted the child after two weeks of giving birth.

The CWC, in turn, filed in the court that it had received a notice from Childline informing it that a woman was unwilling to care for her newborn child and that she had decided to put the child up for adoption or to keep the child in an ashram. Childline advised the CWC that there is a possibility that the girl could be sold by the birth mother.

When the CWC took note of the matter and instructed the birth mother to appear before the committee, the woman had already given the child to the petitioners by means of a notarized adoption deed.

An investigation by Childline found that the child was given away to the petitioners in exchange for 20,000 rupees.

Thereafter, FIRs were filed against the first petitioner and the birth mother, citing their refusal to respond to the CWC subpoena.

After filing the FIR, both the petitioner and the birth mother applied for custody.

In a social investigation report, the birth mother found that she had given her child to the petitioners out of goodwill and given her financial aid and food. The report contained a statement that the mother may have a mental illness.

After the applications were denied, the birth mother submitted a new custody application, with the first petitioner declaring that he did not mind granting custody to the birth mother. A written petition submitted by the petitioners in the meantime has also been withdrawn.

This was followed by a new written petition seeking custody of the child who was at the time in the care of the CWC and in the care of an adoption agency.

Arguments in court

Senior Advocate Raja Thakare stated that the notarized document the petitioners relied on to establish their claim to the child was a valid adoption document under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act of 1956.

Since it was in effect under the Hindu Adoption Act, the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act within the meaning of Section 56 (3) of the Juvenile Justice Act would not apply.

It was expressly pointed out that Section 81 of the law, which punishes buying or selling a child for any purpose, cannot be applied to the facts at hand.

On the other hand, attorney Karansingh B. Rajput asserted that the CWÜ only fulfilled its legal obligation in taking custody of the child.

What the Court found

After examining the notarized deed, the Court found that there was nowhere in the document to indicate that the requirements of the Hindu Adoption Law relating to valid adoption had been met verbally and spiritually.

Record of a statement that the document was not executed until after the FIR was submitted.

“Although respondent # 3 claimed that the amount was

The records show that the child was handed over to the petitioners in exchange for money, “the court noted.

Therefore, the Court found that the CWC had acted appropriately with regard to the mandate of the Juvenile Justice Act and the implementation of the law.

“Respondent No. 2-CWC has acted within the meaning of the mandate of the Juvenile Justice Act and in pursuing the aims and rationale for the enactment of the aforesaid legislation related to proper care, protection, development, treatment and social restoration to ensure integration of such children, taking into account the best interests of the children, “it said.

After the Court found that the petitioners had failed to pursue their appeals under the Juvenile Criminal Law Act, the Court rejected the petition.

The Tribunal recognized the sincere efforts of Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput, who has been appointed by the Tribunal to represent the CWC.

Click here to download the verdict

Comments are closed.