Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Summons were issued to defendants. Defendants have appeared and filed the WS wherein it is stated that defendant no. 1 is the patient of Neuro­ patio (a neurological disease) on account of which defendant no. 1 is bed ridden since 2009. On his behalf WS has been filed by his wife (defendant no. 2). Defendants have however stated that they have no objection if the plaintiff is being declared natural and biological father of Rakshita Maini and the adoption deed in question be declared to be null and void. All the facts as stated in the plaint have not been disputed.

Keeping in view the fact that facts stated in the plaint have been admitted in total, present application has been moved seeking for decree of present suit on admission in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. I have heard ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and has gone through the record carefully. It is very much evident from the facts as stated in the plaint that baby girl Sara @ Rakshita Maini had born out of the live­in­relationship between plaintiff and Sandhya Kapoor during the time when plaintiff's marriage with Rekha Maini was subsisted though both spouses were living separately. Evidently for this reason the natural mother of the girl namely Sandhya Kapoor had executed the adoption deed in favor of defendant no. 1 and 2. It is also matter of record that subsequently the marriage of the plaintiff with Rekha Maini was dissolved by mutual decree of divorce of 23.03.2008. And thereafter, plaintiff got married with Sandhya Kapoor on 13.04.2008. However, unfortunately the second wife of the plaintiff had also expired on 06.06.2008. Now, plaintiff being the biological father of the girl Rakshita Maini seeks to declare the adoption deed in favor of defendants to be null and void.

Now, question arises whether a discretion should be exercised in facts of the present case to decree the suit under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. It be noted that plaintiff is seeking relief of declaration to declare a registered adoption deed to be null and void which was executed by Late Sandhya Kapoor. In such circumstance when it is not clear as to whether there is any legal right or entitlement existing in favor of plaintiff within the meaning of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, relief of declaration cannot be given. Specifically in the facts of the case where it is clear that firstly to avoid the legal implications or liabilities of giving birth to a child from another woman than his wife, during the time when marriage of the plaintiff with Rekha Maini was subsisting, child was given in adoption to defendant no. 1 and 2 who happened to be elder brother and sister in law of plaintiff.

Another important aspect to be noted here is that plaintiff is seeking to declare adoption deed null and void. A registered document can be declared null and void only upon proof of some fraud or illegality, declaratory relief of getting a registered document to be null and void cannot be given for the emotional reasons of parties. During the argument no doubt ld. Counsel for the plaintiff made a submission that court must show some indulgence to avoid the possible difficulties with the child who has already lost her mother. I have all emotions and sympathy with the child but while giving thoughtful consideration to the facts I find myself helpless in law to give a relief of declaration when same to my understanding cannot be given. Process of judicial system cannot be allowed to undo a legally carried out process, when there is no reason for doing so. In the present case even it is also not clear as to whether cancellation of such adoption deed would be for ultimate welfare of the child or not. If the plaintiff being the biological father of the child is interested for her betterment he can still do so without even getting the adoption deed declared to be null and void. Which otherwise also not possible in the facts pleaded in the case. Therefore, application stands dismissed.