Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Section 63 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Section 56 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Debarati Nandee vs Ms. Tripti Gurha & Anr on 6 October, 2023
In so far as Mr. Mishra's reliance on the decision of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Debarati Nandee (supra) is concerned, it is not well
Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS Page 11 of 14
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2025 08:01:54 :::
11-WP-3506-2025 (C) (1).doc
founded, as the facts of the said case were totally in variance and distinct
with the case in hand. As noted hereinabove, it was simplicitor a case of
the PAP having two natural biological children and the PAP, wanted to
have a third child in adoption. It is in these circumstances, applying the
provisions of Regulation 5(7) of the 2022 Regulations, such request was
not entertained. In the facts of the present case, the rejection of the
petitioners' application is not simplicitor on the applicability of strict
parameters of Regulation 5(8) as it stood under 2017 Regulations or on a
strict application of Regulation 5(8) of the 2022 Regulations, as clearly
seen from the impugned rejection (as extracted hereinabove), but merely
on the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 21 March 2023.
The said decision hence would not assist the respondents.
1