Shabnamjahan vs State Of Maharashtra CRA 127/22 11/04/23

[ CORAM: GAURI GODSE, JUSTICE] [ BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]

• Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, Section 102 Adoption of child Adoption cannot be denied on the ground that prospective parent is a single lady and a divorcee and she being a working lady will not be able to give personal attention to the child When the statute recognises a single parent to be eligible for being an adoptive parent, the approach of the Competent Court defeats the very object of the statute Single or divorced person is eligible for taking a child in adoption Application is rejected only on one ground of the adoptive parent being a working lady.

Relevant Paras :

15. The learned Counsel for the Applicants has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Sumed s/o. Devidas Thamke and others1 in support of his submissions. In the said case adoption application was rejected by the Competent Court on the ground that since the child was neither a child in conflict with the law, nor a child in need of care and protection, nor an orphan, nor a surrendered/ abandoned child, the provisions of JJ Act were not applicable. This Court, after referring to various provisions of the JJ Act, held that the JJ Act is also applicable for the adoption of a child by a relative from another relative.
16. In the present case, the Competent Court has rejected the application only on the ground that the prospective parent is a single lady and a divorcee, and she being a workinglady, will not be able to give personal attention to the child per contra the biological parents would be in a better condition to take care of the child. Section 57 of the JJ Act provides the eligibility criteria of a prospective parent. Sub- section (3) of Section 57 holds a single or divorced person eligible for taking a child in adoption. Sub-section (1) of Section 57 states that the prospective adoptive parent shall be physically fit, financially sound, mentally alert and highly motivated to adopt a child to provide a good upbringing to the child. Thus, the reason given by the Competent Court is not only contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act but is also contrary to the recommendation made by the District Child Welfare Officer and the Assistant Director of CARA. Even otherwise, the reason given by the Competent Court is unfounded and baseless.
17. The Competent Court was required to verify whether the statutory requirements were complied with and, after scrutinising the record of the proceedings, form an opinion as to whether the application for adoption was in the interest of the child. The Competent Court has erroneouslyrejected the application by doing guesswork. The comparison done by the Competent Court between the biological mother being a housewife and the prospective adoptive mother (single parent) being a working lady reflects a mindset of the medieval conservative concepts of a family. When the statute recognises a single parent to be eligible for being an adoptive parent, the approach of the Competent Court defeats the very object of the statute. Generally, a single parent is bound to be a working person, maybe with some rare exceptions. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, a single parent can be held to be ineligible to be an adoptive parent on the ground that he/she is a working person.

18. There is nothing adverse shown to me for rejecting the application for adoption. A perusal of the record shows that all the statutory compliances are done. The report of the District Child Welfare Officer and the pre-approved letter issued by the Assistant Director of CARA have found the prospective adoptive parent to be a fit parent for adopting the child. The impugned Order does not record anything
adverse regarding the statutory compliances. The application is rejected only on one ground of the adoptive parent being a working lady. The reason recorded by the Competent Court is unfounded, illegal, perverse, unjust and unacceptable.

for read the Judgment click here :

Miss Shabnamjahan D:o. Moinuddin Ansari vs state of Maharashtra

all rights reserved (Vaibhav Tomar Adv)