CRUX:
Kripal Amrik Singh &Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra &Ors. Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4095/2021- The SC Examines the Applicability of LK Pandey Case to Adoptions Under Personal Law.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
18/06/2021
JUDGE:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta&Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian
PARTIES:
Kripal Amrik Singh & Anr(Petitioner)
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Respondent)
SUMMARY
In the meanwhile, the bench ordered that custody of the kid be given to the petitioners after the SLP was served.
Background Facts
The SLP persuaded by the adoptive parents against denying the couple permission to take custody of the kid based on a "mere notarized document purporting to be an adoption deed."
After the infant was taken away by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and placed in a Child Care Institution, the SLP petitioners sought the High Court in a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the girl's biological mother had willingly given the child in adoption to them.
It was argued that the requirements for a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption Act had been met, and that the petitioners were therefore entitled to protection under Section 56(3) of the JJ Act, which states that nothing in the Act applies to adoptions of children made under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The petitioners claimed that the provisions of the JJ Act would not apply to the present case, and hence, the entire proceedings before the CWC were not in accordance with law and that there was no jurisdiction with the CWC to have proceeded to take away the custody of the girl-child.
However, the High Court held that the said document nowhere indicates that the adoption is under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption Act and that nothing was placed on record to indicate that the requirements of the Hindu Adoption Act pertaining to a valid adoption were complied with.
The High Court determined that the girl was a "child in need of care and protection" for the purposes of the Juvenile Justice Act, and that the CWC operated in accordance with the law's mandate, and that the CWC's custody could not be considered improper or illegal.
Submissions By Petitioner Before Supreme Court
The petitioner-couple has filed the following plea with the Supreme Court: "The kid was adopted under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, because both parties were governed by Hindu Law. The petitioners adopted the kid after meeting the prerequisites for giving and taking the child, performing the 'Dattak' religious ritual in the presence of witnesses, and signing and notarizing the adoption deed. The child's custody has been taken away by the High Court since the adoption did not follow the JJ Act's procedural procedures."
Proceedings Before High Court
The petitioners in the Bombay High Court were seeking a warrant of habeas corpus and, as a result, a directive from the respondent-CWC to give over the aforementioned girl-child to them. The documents on record, particularly those submitted on record by the CWC, revealed that respondent No. 3, the biological mother of the child, expressed her disinterest in caring for the girl-child shortly after her birth. She had contacted an NGO about this, which had then informed the CWC.
The High Court determined that once there is evidence that the child is in a circumstance where her requirements are unlikely to be met by her parents, she is in need of care and protection as defined by section 2(14)(v) of the Juvenile Justice Act. As a result, the CWC had the authority and responsibility to take action in the case of the aforementioned girl-child, according to the High Court.
The fact that respondent No.3 had given the girl-child to the petitioners was uncovered during one visit by members of the NGO (as authorised by the CWC), according to the High Court ruling. Respondent No. 3 indicated that she had handed the child away and that the petitioners had paid her money. This appeared to be a case of the child being sold at first glance, so a FIR was filed under Section 80 of the Juvenile Justice Act against petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3. The girl-child was returned to Vatsalya Trust, a recognised Special Adoption Agency, after being seized from the petitioners' custody.
The petitioners founded their claim on respondent No.3's alleged voluntary giving away of the child in adoption and the parties' subsequent "Adoption Deed." A review of the paper revealed to the High Court that it is nothing more than a notarized document.
They have evaluated the aforementioned notarized document, which purports to be an Adoption Deed, as well as the petitioners' arguments based on Section 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act. They discovered that nowhere in the agreement does it state that the adoption is governed by the Hindu Adoption Act. Nothing is being sought to be recorded to show that the Hindu Adoption Act's conditions for a lawful adoption were followed to the letter and spirit. The High Court remarked that "such a stand has been taken before this court for the first time after the aforesaid FIR was launched against petitioner No.1."
The court determined that the petitioners cannot claim custody of the girl-child simply by signing a notarized document ostensibly serving as an Adoption Deed. This was especially so in light of the fact that respondent No.3, the biological mother of the girl-child, admitted to giving away the girl-child and receiving Rs.20,000/- before the representatives of the NGO when they visited her home on the instructions of respondent No.2-CWC, and then again when she appeared before respondent No.2-CWC and stated that she had given away the girl-child and received Rs.20,000/-.
The HC was certain that the child was a child in need of care and protection, as defined in Section 2(14)(v) of the Juvenile Justice Act... A review of the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions reveals that respondent No.2-CWC is required, under Section 30 of the Juvenile Justice Act, to conduct a thorough investigation into such children in need of care and protection in order to safeguard their safety and well-being... Respondent No.2-CWC was therefore justified in delivering the girl-child to the Special Adoption Agency, in this case "Vatsalya Trust."
It is important to note that, pursuant to Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act, the provisions of the said Act shall apply to all situations touching children in need of care and protection, notwithstanding anything contained in any other legislation in force. According to the High Court, "the stated non-obstante provision makes it plainly obvious that the respondent No.2-CWC has behaved in accordance with the mandate of law..."
Regardless, the High Court stated that Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act allows anybody who has been harmed by a CWC order to initiate an appeal. If the petitioners had any grievances with respondent No.2-CWC's judgement sending the kid to the Trust and rejecting their plea for custody, they could have pursued their case under the aforementioned clause. "It cannot be stated that the girl-child is in inappropriate or illegal custody because the respondent No.2-CWC's order is in conformity with law and the girl-child is in CWC's custody as a result of the aforementioned order. As a result, the current habeas corpus writ petition is doomed "The High Court ruled.
Supreme Court’s Order
"This court has concluded in Anokha v. State of Rajasthan that the L. K. Pandey rules do not apply to private adoptions, where the child is given in adoption by biological parents," Justice Ramasubramanian told the petitioner-senior couple's attorney. The Supreme Court created an extensive structure for regulating inter-country and intra-country adoptions in Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India.
In the case of Anokha v. State of Rajasthan (2004), it was determined that procedural safeguards are unnecessary in circumstances of adoption of children living with their biological parents since the natural parents are the best judges of what is in the child's best interests. "It's awful that you don't have the child, and neither does the original mother, but the child is being cared for by a child-care facility. Normally, natural occurrences orphan a kid, however in this case, the youngster was orphaned due to a court order "Justice Gupta made the observation.
The bench then proceeded to impose its will. In the ruling, the court noted that "counsel for the petitioners relies on Anokha (Smt) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (2004) 1 SCC 382 and maintained that adoption under a personal law will not be regulated by guidelines in L.K. Pandey Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 Supreme Court 469." The bench directed that "in the meantime, custody of the child be handed over to the petitioners" after issuing notice on the SLP.
Conclusion
The bench then proceeded to enforce its will in the current case. After serving notice on the SLP, the bench ordered that custody of the kid be handed over to the petitioners in the meanwhile.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
