Karnataka High Court
Mr Michael Floyd Bertrand Moses vs Nil on 18 October, 2022
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.427 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MICHAEL FLOYD BERTRAND MOSES
S/O. SRI. LATE EBENEZER MOSES,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.10,
HIGHWOODS CLOSE, CATERHAM,
SURREY, ENGLAND - CR3 6AX, U.K.
2. MRS. AYESHA MOSES
W/O. MICHAEL FLOYD BERTRAND MOSES,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.10,
HIGHWOODS CLOSE, CATERHAM,
SURREY, ENGLAND - CR3 6AX, U.K.
3. MRS. GAJULA BALASAWASWATI
W/O. LATE APPADU SANYASI GAJULA,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.101,
5C-813, 5TH CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT,
1ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 043.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. JAYNA KOTHARI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND:
NIL
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.H.R.SHOWRI, AGA)
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 102 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2022 PASSED IN MISC. PETITION
NO.25042/2022 BY COURT OF XXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BANGALORE (CCH-20) AND ETC.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Misc No.25042/2022, the present civil revision petition is filed.
2. The instant petition pertains to adoption of a girl by name Sai Gayathri. She was born on 05.03.2004 and her mother died on 04.12.2005. Her father is an alcoholic person and his present whereabouts is not known and abandoned the girl - Sai Gayathri. Hence, she has been brought up by her paternal grandparents and it is said that -3- her paternal grandfather died in the year 2017 and she is being looked after by her paternal grandmother. As the grandmother is aged about 80 years, not being in a position to look after the girl any longer requested her elder daughter to take care of the girl, for which she agreed. Petitioner No.3 is the grandmother of the girl - Sai Gayathri and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are her uncle and aunt. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are of Indian origin and are presently citizens of United Kingdom and are desirous of adopting the girl - Sai Gayathri. Hence, they initiated necessary proceedings as contemplated under the law in both India as well as in the United Kingdom to formally adopt the girl - Sai Gayathri. When the proceedings were initiated, the girl was a minor and as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act'), she could have been adopted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. After necessary background check, the Authorities concerned in India i.e., Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) has issued necessary 'No Objection Certificate' stating that the minor child - Sai Gayathri can be adopted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The said -4- certificate is dated 02.03.2022 and when the same was issued, the girl was still a minor. Subsequently, the counter part of CARA in United Kingdom as per the Hague Convention which is Inter-country Adoption Team, Department of Education in United Kingdom as on 07.03.2022 i.e., two days after the girl child attained majority has issued the necessary letter to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 permitting them to adopt the girl. Thereafter, as per the requirements under the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioners filed Misc.No.25042/2022 on the file of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru, seeking necessary order of adoption from the Court. The trial Court in the impugned order examined the procedure adopted by the petitioners and has held that they have complied with all necessary requirements to adopt the girl. However, as on the date of filing the petition, the girl child had attained majority and was no more a child, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant petition is filed. -5-
3. It is contended by the petitioners that the necessary procedures except for obtaining the orders from the trial Court have been complied and relevant Authority CARA had given the necessary permission before the girl child attained majority. Thereafter, the counter part of CARA in United Kingdom knowing fully well that the girl had crossed the age '18', taking into consideration the requirement of the girl child for care and protection, has approved the adoption. It is submitted that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the fact that the necessary permission has been obtained from CARA prior to child obtaining the age of majority, has erroneously dismissed the petition.
4. Admittedly, the procedure for adopting the girl was commenced before the Authorities concerned much prior to she attaining the majority. After due enquiry into the suitability of the child being adopted by a relative residing abroad, CARA has given the necessary 'No Objection Certificate' permitting the girl to be adopted by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2. Even though the girl had -6- crossed the age of '18', when the counter part of CARA in United Kingdom issued the Certificate, it did not prevent them from issuing the necessary letter approving the said adoption. No error can be found in the order of the trial Court in dismissing the petition on the ground that the girl concerned is no more a child as per the provisions of the Act. However, under the peculiar given facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of the girl, I find it a fit case to grant the Adoption Certificate as contemplated under Rule 56 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017.
5. The Juvenile Justice Act is passed keeping in view the welfare of the child concerned and the Court has to take into consideration the need of care and protection to the child concerned. In the instant case, the girl has recently crossed 18 years, her mother died way back in the year 2005 and father is an alcoholic and her aunt and uncle residing in United Kingdom intend to adopt her for her welfare. Though she has attained majority as per the provisions of the Act, it cannot be held that she does not require any care and protection. She is still a student and is -7- not in a position to earn and make a living for herself. Further, if she is adopted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2, it will only secure her interest. In the course of the proceedings, the girl was kept present before the Court and was spoken to and after taking into consideration her wishes and the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that granting her in adoption to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 will only serve her interest and further the objects and the reason for which Juvenile Justice Act is enacted. Further, the adoption proceedings commenced before she attained the age of majority and the necessary Certificate which is issued by the CARA is also before she had attained majority and taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Inter Country Adoption Team, Department of Education in United kingdom has issued the letter to petitioner Nos.1 and 2 permitting them to complete the procedure of adoption, even though as on the date of issuance of the said letter, the child had attained majority. If the said letter were to have been issued a few days before the girl attained majority and the petitioners were to have filed the petition before the trial Court before -8- she attained the majority which is just and few days earlier, there was no reason for the trial Court to have rejected the said petition.
6. Under the said given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without making this as a precedent, I find it a fit case to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The order dated 17.06.2022 passed by the Court of XXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru in Misc No.25042/2022 is hereby set aside.
2. The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 56(2) of the Act is hereby allowed.
3. The third petitioner is permitted to give the girl - Sai Gayathri, born on 05.03.2004 in adoption to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and also remove her out of the jurisdiction of this Court i.e., out of India to United Kingdom.-9-
4. Accordingly, Civil Revision petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE VMB