Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The issue has arisen in the background of the following brief facts, concerning the two writ petitioners before me:

WP(C) 2701/2012

2.1 The petitioner, in this case, Dr. Abha Aggarwal, appears to have approached a couple by the name of Sh. Mohan and Smt. Anita residing in a village situate near Kosi Kalan, state of U.P., in July 2009, to give their child, which was being carried by Smt. Anita, in adoption to her. 2.2 It appears that the said couple Sh. Mohan and Smt. Anita after having made enquiries with regard to the character, financial position, family background and the keenness of the petitioner in adopting their child, agreed to give their child, in adoption, to the petitioner once the child was born. 2.3 Upon the child being born, an adoption ceremony was apparently held, in the presence of relatives and friends of both families. In addition, an adoption deed dated 05.08.2011, was also executed, between Sh. Mohan and Smt. Anita i.e., the biological parents and the adoptive parents i.e., the petitioner herein. It is the case of the petitioner that the said deed of adoption was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, situate in the state of U.P. 2.4 The petitioner claims that, thereafter on, 08.08.2011 she made an application accompanied by all relevant documents to respondent no.2, for issuance of a passport in favour of the child. It is at this stage she was informed that, a passport could be issued in favour of the child only upon a „No Objection Certificate‟ (in short NOC) being obtained from CARA. The petitioner claims that she made the requisite application on 09.08.2011, with CARA, for issuance of a NOC. The application was followed up with visit to the office of the CARA on 11.08.2011, when the petitioner was apparently told orally though, that her application for issuance of a NOC could not be accepted. The reasons though, for refusal, were not articulated.

2.5 The petitioner claims that on 12.08.2011 a visit for the said purpose was also made to the office of respondent no.3 informing him that her application for issuance of a NOC was not accepted by CARA. The above was followed by a visit, once again, by the petitioner to the office of the CARA, on 13.08.2011.

2.6 The petitioner claims that even her brother made several visits to the office of CARA for the said purpose between August and September, 2011. As a result of the same, the petitioner, who is otherwise a resident of New York in U.S.A, decided to shift base to India.

6. On behalf of CARA, a stand is taken that both cases relate to direct adoption, without the intercession of any court or authority. The interest of the children being paramount, a specialized adoption agency would need to intervene in the matter. It is the stand of CARA that the legislative mandate for the same is found in the amendment made in 2006 to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (in short the JJ Act) by introducing Sub-Section (2) in Section 41 of the JJ Act. It is thus, the stand of the CARA, that the rehabilitative measures for children in need of care and protection through means of adoption applies, not only to orphaned and abandoned children, but also to, surrendered children. In other words, according to the stand taken by CARA, the term „surrendered children‟ would include „children which are given in adoption by their biological parents directly to the adoptive parents‟.

12. Before I conclude, I may only point out that Mr Tiku, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) 2701/2012, i.e., Dr. Abha Agrawal, had indicated, a fact which is noticed hereinabove, that she had commenced the process of securing a home study report through a recognized agency. The submission thus made was that the process should be allowed to continue. In my view, as long as the agency, which is conducting a home study qua the said petitioner, is recognized by CARA, this court can have no objection to the said process being carried out. The petitioner in this behalf would be well advised to keep CARA in the picture. If so advised, the petitioner can approach CARA as well to carry on the investigation at their end in India. If approached, CARA will do the needful at its end.