Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Nishank Jain vs Not Mention on 6 November, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CR-409-2017 (DR. NISHANK JAIN Vs NOT MENTION) Jabalpur, Dated : 06-11-2017 Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision assailing the order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chhindwara, whereby the petition for adoption has been returned for non-impleading the parents of the child to be adopted.
It is petitioner's contention that as per the provisions contained in Section 35 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, there was no requirement for the Court to have sought impleadment of biological parents of the child as a party. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once a parent or guardian, who for physical, emotional and social factors beyond their control, wishes to surrender a child, shall produce the child before the Committee.
Sub-Section (3) of Section 35 provides that the parents or guardian of the child shall be given two months' time to reconsider their decision and in the intervening period, the Committee shall either allow, after due inquiry, the child to be with the parents or guardian under supervision, or place the child in a Specialised Adoption Agency, if he or she is below six years of age, or a children's home if he is above six years. There is a proviso below Sub-section (3) of Section 35 which provides that if the Committee, after prescribed process of inquiry and counselling is satisfied about the factors, then a surrender deed shall be executed by the parent or guardian in a manner prescribed under the Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at best, the Court could have asked the Committee to produce such surrender deed and could not have asked the petitioners to implead biological parents of the child to be adopted, as a party.
A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court below had given directions for impleading Child Welfare Committee, Chhindwara as a party and not the biological parents of the child who is to be taken into care and adoption. As per the procedure laid down under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 a Child Welfare Committee is to be constituted under the provisions of Rule 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007. As per Rule 25 of 2007 Rules, the Committee has to perform the functions to achieve the objectives of the Act; viz, take cognizance of and receive children produced before the Committee; decide on the matters brought before the committee etc. Rule 25 (b) provides the function of declaring a child legally free for adoption. As per clause (p) of Rule 25 visit each institution where children are sent for care and protection or adoption at least once in three months to review the condition of children in institutions, with support of the State Government and suggest necessary action.
Since this Child Welfare Committee has been entrusted with important work, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Court below directing impleading of Child Welfare Committee. In fact learned counsel for the petitioner has wrongly mentioned that family court has directed the petitioner to implead biological parents of the child to be impleaded as a party. Since the Child Welfare Committee has been assigned important role under the Scheme in terms of the notification dated 4.1.2017 issued by Woman and Child Development, Ministry, there is no violation of such notification in asking the petitioner to implead Child Welfare Committee, Chhindwara, as a party, as it is not a rival party, no fault can be attributed to the impugned order. Therefore, there is no shortcoming, imperfection or illegality in the impugned order calling for interference, thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE @PK