Bombay High Court
Swti, Bal Vikas vs Erik Smeulders And Vincenza Sanna ... on 24 January, 2020
Author: G.S.Kulkarni
Bench: G.S.Kulkarni
pvr 1 FAP 41-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
AND
IN ITS GENERAL AND INHERENT JURISDICTION
FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO. 41 OF 2019
SWIT, Bal Vikas ... Petitioner
And
Erik Smeulders and Vincenza Sanna ... Proposed Adopters
-----
Smt.Lalita Jayaraj for Petitioner.
Mr.O. Hareendran, Scrutiny Officer of ICSW.
-----
CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI, J.
(In Chamber) DATE : 24th JANUARY, 2020 P.C.:
On 3 January 2020 this Court has passed an order taking note of the earlier order dated 6 December 2019. In paragraph 2 of the said order the following directions were made:-
2. There is an office report that CARA is already served with the above order. However so far, on behalf of CARA nothing is placed on record. The Court is thus unable to proceed with the matter. In the aforesaid situation, there is no alternative but to direct CARA to place on record the entire record including medical report before the Court on the adjourned date of hearing, failing which CARA shall depute a representative to remain present alongwith the entire record."
2. Today Ms.Prajakta Poojari, representative from State Adoption Resource Authority (for short 'SARC') is present and tendered a photocopy of 1/4 pvr 2 FAP 41-19.doc a letter dated 23 December 2019 addressed by Dr.J.Pati, Joint Director, CARA to Mr.Rushikesh Yashod, Commissioner, Commisonarate Women & Child Development, in which in paragraph 3 the following remarks are made:-
"3. It is directed that a representative from SARA may attend the court during the next hearing and following submission be given to the Hon'ble Court, in compliance to the order dated 06 Dec 2019:-
(a) The No Objection Certificate (which is Article 17 of the Hague Convention for Inter-country adoption, to which India is a signatory) is issued by this Authority under Regulation 16(1) of the Adoptions Regulations,2017. The NOC is issued only after the records/documents of the Prospective Adoptive Parents and the Child have been examined by the NOC Committee of CARA, which comprises of three external experts including a medical expert from AIIMS who is the Chairperson of the Committee. In this case, the Chairperson of NOC Committee from AIIMS, Delhi has reviewed the case and approved with remarks "Child Ravi (F) DOB 10/11/2016 is a normal child as per MER which is signed by both the PAPS may be considered for adoption in the best interest of the child.
The attached medical report of the mother has no contraindication for adoption." (copy of the Remarks recorded are enclosed for reference)
(b) Further, the Hon'ble Court may pass an order looking at the facts placed before the Hon'ble Court as per Section 61 of the JJ Act,2015, considering the best interests of the child.
(c) The Hon'ble Court may also be apprised that the child was referred to eight Indian families and is hard to place, after which it was referred to foreigners. The family accepted to adopt the child after two foreign families refused to adopt the child after reserving her."
3. In my opinion, the above remarks do not satisfy the anxiety of the Court and the apprehensions which are discussed at the hearing of this matter and as seen from the observations as made in the order dated 3 January 2020. Accordingly, CARA is directed to comply with the directions as contained in paragraph 2 of the order dated 3 January 2020 passed by this Court.
2/4
pvr 3 FAP 41-19.doc
4. The order dated 3 January 2020 was already forwarded by e-mail to CARA and was received by CARA. It is surprising that despite receipt of the order dated 3 January 2020, CARA called upon the representative of the State Adoption Resources Authority to appear with incomplete details before the Court and simply tender the said letter of CARA. This is not acceptable. The issue before the Court is of paramount welfare of the child.
5. At today's discussion, it is also noticed that the home study report which is annexed to the petition is not at all a home study report. This is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. If this be the position, it is more a matter for CARA to reconsider its approval. All these issues would be considered on the adjourned date of hearing.
6. Smt.Lalita Jaya Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record her comments (pages 1 and 2) on this home study report which is taken on record and marked "X-2" for identification.
7. Mr.O. Hareendran, Scrutiny Officer of ICSW would also study the respective reports and place his comments before this Court on the adjourned date of hearing.
3/4
pvr 4 FAP 41-19.doc
8. In the above circumstances, the Court would not accept any further laxity in complying the orders of the Court by CARA. The representative of CARA shall remain present in the Court alongwith the entire record as directed. Without examining the record, it may not be possible for this Court to proceed in the matter and pass any further order.
9. Stand over to 7 February 2020.
Digitally signed by Prashant Prashant V. Rane (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) V. Rane Date:
2020.01.24 19:19:41 +0530 4/4