MUMBAI: In a case where a two-year-old boy is at the centre of a legal battle between adoptive parents, who have raised him since he was two-day-old, and his biological parents, the Bombay high court has directed a trial court to decide the matter within six months. There will be no extension of time, clarified Justice Sharmila Deshmukh in a judgment pronounced on Saturday.
There are multiple petitions surrounding the toddler, of which the HC has set aside two orders of the city civil court in Mumbai which had ruled against the adoptive parents. The orders set aside include one of March 2002, which rejected their adoption petition of 2021, and one of March this year, rejecting their review plea and directing them to hand over the child’s custody to the biological parents on a plea by the natural parents. Till then, however, the child will continue to stay with the adoptive parents, who claim that the biological parents had given the newborn for adoption and have even executed deed of adoption on July 16, 2021.
The biological father objected saying they had signed “without reading, understanding” documents given by a woman associated with a non-governmental organisation (NGO) named AHAM Foundation. He said the infant was handed over to the woman and adoptive parents were not there. The biological parents said that during the Covid pandemic, they lost jobs and the mother decided to keep the child in an institution for some days or for adoption, but later, after discussing with families, they were willing to maintain the child and sought rejection of the adoption plea.
The adoptive parents said adoption took place through the NGO, and the child was given in adoption as the biological parents, in their 20s, were not married at the time and had consented to adoption through affidavits. They subsequently married. The trial court rejected the adoption plea on grounds of lack of registered adoption deed and lack of consent, and said “mere custody of child” not sufficient proof that the child was legally adopted.
The rejection of the two orders, however, does not mean any conclusion in favour of the adoptive parents, said the HC, as the trial court is now required to decide a suit filed last year by the adoptive parents seeking a declaration that the adoption was valid. The HC said section 15 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), “valid adoption cannot be cancelled and, as such, inquiry into the validity of adoption by leading evidence is necessitated”. It also said the law does not require registration of adoption deeds.
But the HC said “inquiry contemplated under the provisions of HAMA as regards the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption… was not conducted” in the trial court and the intention has to be gathered from their conduct with evidence in a trial.
There are multiple petitions surrounding the toddler, of which the HC has set aside two orders of the city civil court in Mumbai which had ruled against the adoptive parents. The orders set aside include one of March 2002, which rejected their adoption petition of 2021, and one of March this year, rejecting their review plea and directing them to hand over the child’s custody to the biological parents on a plea by the natural parents. Till then, however, the child will continue to stay with the adoptive parents, who claim that the biological parents had given the newborn for adoption and have even executed deed of adoption on July 16, 2021.
The biological father objected saying they had signed “without reading, understanding” documents given by a woman associated with a non-governmental organisation (NGO) named AHAM Foundation. He said the infant was handed over to the woman and adoptive parents were not there. The biological parents said that during the Covid pandemic, they lost jobs and the mother decided to keep the child in an institution for some days or for adoption, but later, after discussing with families, they were willing to maintain the child and sought rejection of the adoption plea.
The adoptive parents said adoption took place through the NGO, and the child was given in adoption as the biological parents, in their 20s, were not married at the time and had consented to adoption through affidavits. They subsequently married. The trial court rejected the adoption plea on grounds of lack of registered adoption deed and lack of consent, and said “mere custody of child” not sufficient proof that the child was legally adopted.
The rejection of the two orders, however, does not mean any conclusion in favour of the adoptive parents, said the HC, as the trial court is now required to decide a suit filed last year by the adoptive parents seeking a declaration that the adoption was valid. The HC said section 15 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA), “valid adoption cannot be cancelled and, as such, inquiry into the validity of adoption by leading evidence is necessitated”. It also said the law does not require registration of adoption deeds.
But the HC said “inquiry contemplated under the provisions of HAMA as regards the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption… was not conducted” in the trial court and the intention has to be gathered from their conduct with evidence in a trial.
