ORAL JUDGMENT :- This is a revision application filed by applicants against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, dated 1-22001, in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 4512000 thereby rejecting their application under section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act for grant of permission to get the child in question in adoption. 2. The applicant's were married on 10-4-1976. They were not blessed with a child. With a desire to adopt a child, they approached the non-applicant. The non-applicant runs the destitute children home known as 'AAJOL'. The non-applicant possesses certificate of recognition to adopt and to give child in adoption in welfare of the child. 3. Non-applicant organization informed the applicants that there was a female child born on 9-8-1999, namely 'Kranti' who was surrendered by her parents to the non-applicant on 22-8-1999. Kranti was with the non-applicant as an abandoned child since then. The parents of the said child had never attended the child thereafter. The non-applicant canvassed the applicants, who were anxious to adopt a child to take Kranti in foster care as she needs good guardian for her nourishment and upbringing. The respondent also informed the applicants that Kranti can even be given in adoption to applicants if they were willing to adopt her, depending upon if Court would permit the same. 4. As a result of pursuation by non-applicant and moved by emotions seeing the condition of the abandoned girl child, the applicants who did not have a child of their own choice, took 'Kranti' in their foster care from non-applicants with effect from 29-5-2000, after completing all formalities required by law. S. On 12-6-2000, applicants filed an application under section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, before the Additional District Judge, Chandrapur, for grant of permission to non-applicant to give the said surrendered child in adoption to the applicants. 6. Learned Additional District Judge, called for a Study Report from recognized institution vide order dated 15-7-2000. The Scrutiny Officer submitted the report on 14-8-2000, which reveals as follows :- Representation : The proposed minor was born through legitimate relationship. The consent of natural parents need to be verified by this Hon'ble Court. The period of reconsideration as per the CARA guideline is over in this case. The applicants are aged, having stable marriage, do not have biological child due to medical reasons. The consent of natural parents need to be verified by this Hon'ble Court. The period of reconsideration as per the CARA guideline is over in this case. The applicants are aged, having stable marriage, do not have biological child due to medical reasons. They have opted for a female child aged about 2 years. They are physically fit, mentally sound and have steady source of income to bring up the child. The child is in foster care of the applicants since 28-5-2000. The follow up report needs to be submitted prior to legalization. The placement is recommended and is for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court." (quoted from Page 71 of C.R.A. Paper Book) 7. The Scrutinizing agency has furnished further report through letter dated 13-12-2000. The contents of the said report which refer to the biological parents of Kranti need not be referred here as those would result in disclosing the identity. It shall suffice to refer to the relevant points which are as follows: (i) The biological parents who belonged to different caste had married in temple without disclosing it to respective parents. Both of them were unemployed when Kranti was born to them. Delivery of child had taken place in a private maternity home. The biological father had to marry his sister and disclosure of marriage would have posed problems, therefore, wanted that the marriage should not be disclosed to the parents and optionlessly, they had surrendered the child. (ii) The mother of the child did not have option than to surrender the child, as the biological father had decided to do so. (iii) The letters addressed by non-applicant to natural parents of the said child were received by the father only and was not received by the mother. The mother was not informed. (iv) The mother was not aware of the fact that the surrender had become irrevocable and consequential accrual of right to the non-applicant to give the said child in adoption . (iv) The biological parents of child when contacted by Scrutiny Officer have submitted a statement jointly signed by them through which they have claimed that their income taken together is Rs. 4000/-, they realized that they had committed mistake in abandoning the child; and now they want their child. (iv) The biological parents of child when contacted by Scrutiny Officer have submitted a statement jointly signed by them through which they have claimed that their income taken together is Rs. 4000/-, they realized that they had committed mistake in abandoning the child; and now they want their child. (v) The father did not turn up in spite of three letters at the Institution to enquire about the child and this was because of his difficulties. The mother was unaware of any such communication to the father because she had not received any communication from the Institution. (vi) On one occasion she had come to the Institution but could not meet the authorities. (vii) Court should ascertain the willingness of the biological parents. 8. It is seen on perusal of statement of biological parents, which is dated 7-2-2000 inter alia that: (1) They had surrendered the child, born on 9-8-1999, on 22-8-1999 as they were in very difficult position. (2) They had married in a temple without disclosing the fact of marriage to their respective parents. (3) The institution had cautioned them that they can take back the child within three months, however, they could not take the child back as they were not able to bear the expenses of rearing the child. (4) The biological mother had met the in-charge of the Institution, however, later-on could not call upon. During interview by Scrutiny Officer, they have disclosed that now they are able to sustain the expenses of rearing the child and they wanted to take back the child, as now total income of both of them together is Rs. 4000/-. 9. Record also shows that there is an affidavit on record at Exh. 12 filed by the social worker of the respondent institution where the child was received and reared till she was given for foster care to the applicants. In his affidavit, he has stated that:- (a) Biological father stays in a room which does not contain household articles for day to day living. (b) Biological mother is not residing with him, and she stays with her parents which is at a distance of one Kilometre. (c) The biological father and mother have never stayed together. (d) The biological father stays separate and away from his parents or other family members. (b) Biological mother is not residing with him, and she stays with her parents which is at a distance of one Kilometre. (c) The biological father and mother have never stayed together. (d) The biological father stays separate and away from his parents or other family members. (e) Though at the time of surrendering the child by abandoning, biological father had represented that his sister's marriage is settled, which will be broken if the marriage and the birth of child is disclosed, however, so far the marriage of sister is not performed, and therefore, the reason leading to abandonment of child persists. (f) Biological parents have never come to the Institution to see or claim the child. 10. The learned Additional District Judge framed one issue for consideration which is as follows : "1. Whether the permission to give the child in adoption by applicant No.3 to applicant Nos. land 2 should be granted." The said issue was negatived by the learned Additional District Judge on the reasoning enumerated in the Judgment. 11. Learned Additional District Judge based his Judgment on the second report submitted by the Scrutiny Officer suggesting that willingness of biological parents to receive the child back should be ascertained. It seems that the Addl. District Judge was also impressed due to observations that the biological mother had no option than to accede to biological father's insistence for surrender. It appears that learned District Judge was satisfied that biological parents were ready and willing to receive back the child, based on joint statement given by them to the report of Scrutiny Officer. 12. Learned Additional District Judge, relying on the decision of Laxmi Kant Pandey vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1987 SC 232 , came to the conclusion that it would not be proper to deny the right of the child to grow in an atmosphere of love and affection in the family of biological parents only because the decision of surrender has become irrevocable, since now the child is going, to get said favourable circumstances. Therefore, it will not be proper to allow the child to be given in adoption to the foster parents. 13. Therefore, it will not be proper to allow the child to be given in adoption to the foster parents. 13. The rejection of the application for grant of permission to grant the said child in adoption by the learned Additional District Judge has been challenged by the applicants in present application, on the grounds enumerated below :- (a) That learned Additional District Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the said child is in foster care with the applicants since May 2000 and the child has developed love and affection towards them, and it would not be appropriate for the welfare of the child to be taken away from the current family to that of her natural parents. (b) That there was no claim by natural parents of the child, and the said application has been erroneously rejected solely relying upon the report of the Scrutiny Officer. (c) That the applicants were not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the Scrutiny Officer and were not provided with the report of the Scrutiny Officer. (d) That the natural parents of the said child failed to claim the child within the prescribed time and thus the surrender of the child became irrevocable, and hence, the natural parents were not entitled to reclaim the child from non-applicants. 14. The points which emerge for consideration of this Court are namely :- (1) "Whether the surrender by the natural parents of the child became irrevocable and they were not entitled to reclaim it from non-applicant." (2) "Whether non-issuance of the report of Scrutiny Officer or L.C.S.W. and not giving an opportunity of cross-examination thereafter amounted to violation of principles of natural justice." 15. At the outset it would be appropriate to mention that the said child has been in the custody of the applicants from 29-5-2000, the date when she was given to applicants in foster care by the non-applicant till 7-3-2005, and the child is in care and custody of the applicants for more than six years approximately since five months after her birth. 16. The welfare of the child is of prime importance in the cases relating to adoption or custody. Time and again the Honourable Apex Court has reiterated that welfare of the child concerned will outweigh all other considerations. 16. The welfare of the child is of prime importance in the cases relating to adoption or custody. Time and again the Honourable Apex Court has reiterated that welfare of the child concerned will outweigh all other considerations. Hence, in the instant case also, the facts have to be considered keeping in view of the sole objective of the welfare of child and not the desires or pleadings of the applicants or even of biological parents who had relinquished the child, which act of theirs had become irrevocable, from the act of surrender and failure or omission to claim it within reasonable span of time. 17. It has come on record that in the aforesaid background, biological father was contacted by the Social Worker some time prior to October, 1999. The father had visited the respondents Institution and assured that he would come back on 21-11-1999. He was therefore, intimated by letter dated 3-1-2000 to come and meet the Social worker on any day between 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. The Scrutiny agency also exchanged various letters thereafter. The biological parents have not responded to the said correspondence much less on their own. 18. It appears that the biological father got alerted when the Scrutiny Officer contacted him, and appraised that if the parents do not claim the child from the non-applicant, the child may be given in adoption, and thereupon it appears that he has discussed the matter with the biological mother of the child. In the result, the biological parents submitted to the Scrutiny Officer a joint application/statement on 29-11-2000 expressing their readiness and willingness to receive the child assigning the reason that due to inability to incur expenses to rear the child they had not claimed it. It seems that thereafter, the social worker of the respondent institution submitted his affidavit Exh. 12 describing inability as well disinterestedness of biological parents. 19. Though Scrutinizing Officer has expressed about willingness of the biological parents to receive and rear the child, the Scrutiny Officer has not furnished any information, much less favourable to the biological parents about their social, economic, moral and psychological and other background so as to support the basic object of welfare of the child. It is borne on record that though Scrutiny Officer had called for the marriage certificate from the biological parents, it was never produced by the biological parents. It is borne on record that though Scrutiny Officer had called for the marriage certificate from the biological parents, it was never produced by the biological parents. Whether said persons are biological parents is also not conclusive from any record whatsoever. One more thing to be attended to is that still there is a room of doubt as to whether the marriage of the natural parents of the said child was legitimate and whether they are cohabiting as husband and wife, particularly in the light of Exh. 12 the affidavit of Social Worker of Foster Care Institution. Scrutiny Officer's recommendations, therefore, assist in adding to the confusion than assisting a conclusion for favouring and honouring the wishes of biological parents. 20. One thing to be noticed in this case is that there is adequate material on record to infer that natural parents have not made any efforts to look after the welfare of child and restore to the child the parental love and care which they had denied to the child. They even did not make any effort to retrieve the custody of child. There is even sufficient material on record to conclude that even now, the said biological parents have stayed away from each other after the birth of the child. The Scrutiny Officer could not secure any evidence to suggest that biological parents are living together with ostensible status of husband and wife. It is seen that any independent effort is not made except through the report of the Scrutiny Officer to secure custody of child by the biological parents. It is clear from their conduct, and affidavit of the social worker of the respondent at Exh. 12 that the biological parents cannot be held to be sure as to whether they want and can rear the child. Representation by biological parents in joint application/statement therefore, do not inspire confidence. 21. It is an accepted preposition that the balanced development of a child, emotional, physical, and intellectual, can be best ensured within the family, or where this is not possible, then in familial surrogating. Here, it can be seen that last five years, the family for the said child is of the applicants as they have raised and reared the child from her age of about 8 months and the child has developed an emotional attachment and involvement in the family of the applicants. 22. Here, it can be seen that last five years, the family for the said child is of the applicants as they have raised and reared the child from her age of about 8 months and the child has developed an emotional attachment and involvement in the family of the applicants. 22. As the child is of only six years, the consideration of taking her consent does not arise. Moreover, even the learned Additional District Judge has made an observation in Para 15 that it is well settled in view of Laxmi Kant Pandey (supra) that after allowing the parents a reasonable time to consider any decision to relinquish a child for adoption, the decision should become irrevocable. However, the learned Additional District Judge gave more importance to the compelling circumstances of the alleged natural parents than the welfare of the child, and did it so erroneously sheerly relying upon Scrutiny Officer's report and without adverting to totality of circumstances, such as the contents and grounds assigned in the joint letter/statement of parents, notices sent to them, and the affidavit Exh. 12, and their failure to barely advert to the child and ultimately, their failure to demand back the child in reasonable span of time and soon after they became able to rear it. 23. The natural parents of the child cannot wait to receive back child indefinitely and leave the fate of the child in suspended animation, leaving to them the choice of exercising option of claiming the child at later point in time giving the excuses that for the present they are not capable and financially sound enough to be able to taking care of the child. 24. On one hand the child is in custody of the applicants who are taking proper care of the child and have reasonable means to further rear the child without difficulty and on the other hand there are natural parents of the child who were sure of not taking the child into custody. No efforts are made by the biological parents by approaching the respondent Institution or the Court. The welfare of the child calls for the decision that the custody of child should not be disturbed, and the application for grant of permission to non-applicant for giving the said child in adoption legally to the applicants should be allowed. 25. No efforts are made by the biological parents by approaching the respondent Institution or the Court. The welfare of the child calls for the decision that the custody of child should not be disturbed, and the application for grant of permission to non-applicant for giving the said child in adoption legally to the applicants should be allowed. 25. As regards the second question as to the violation of principles of natural justice in not allowing the report of the Scrutiny Officer to be examined by the applicants and cross-examination of the said officer thereof, this Court finds that it may be felt that the prima facie applicants were prejudiced by the said non-disclosure inasmuch as the report weighed in the mind of the Court favourable to the biological parents. 26. It could have been convenient and possible that substance of report could have been put to the applicants and they were entitled to be heard thereon. In rare a case where there be a report adverse to applicants claiming a child in adoption are likely to be denied on account of such report may be justified in claiming that they are being condemned un-heard. In such eventuality substance of report or adverse material could be provided to such party to enable such applicant to meet any stigmatic allegation or material brought forward against them. 27. Even otherwise full report of the Scrutiny Officer could never be disclosed to the applicants or foster parents or any other person including alleged or known biological parents, lest it shall result in destruction of secrecy and confidentiality thereof. Maintaining the secrecy of adoptive parents and or biological parents is an essential element for welfare of child and for preventing abuse of information by any unscrupulous person. Moreover, such disclosure and opportunity of hearing is wholly un-necessary as litigation of present nature is not an adversarial lis. This view about maintaining confidentiality and secrecy is supported by un-ambiguous expression by Lordships of Supreme Court in the 1st case of Laxmikant Pande vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC Page 469 contained in para 22 and 23. Moreover, such disclosure and opportunity of hearing is wholly un-necessary as litigation of present nature is not an adversarial lis. This view about maintaining confidentiality and secrecy is supported by un-ambiguous expression by Lordships of Supreme Court in the 1st case of Laxmikant Pande vs. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC Page 469 contained in para 22 and 23. Relevant excerpts from paras 22 and 23 are quoted for ready reliance as below :- "22…..Lastly, we come to the procedure to be followed by the Court when an application for guardianship of a child is made to it Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 provides for notice of the application to be issued to various persons including the parents of the child if they are residing in any State to which the Act extends. But, we are definitely of the view that no notice under this section should be issued to the biological parents of the child, since it would create considerable amount of embarrassment and hardship if the biological parents were then to come forward and oppose the application of the prospective adoptive parent for guardianship of the child. Moreover, the biological parents would then come to know who is the person taking the child in adoption and with this knowledge they would at any time be able to trace the whereabouts of the child and they may try to contact the child resulting in emotional and psychological disturbance for the child which might affect his future happiness. The possibility also cannot be ruled out that if the biological parents know who are the adoptive parents they may try to extort money from the adoptive parents. It is therefore absolutely essential that the biological parents should not have any opportunity of knowing who are the adoptive parents taking the child in adoption and therefore, notice of the application for guardianship should not be given to the biological parents. We would direct that for the same reasons notice of the application for guardianship should also not be published in any newspaper. We would direct that for the same reasons notice of the application for guardianship should also not be published in any newspaper. The proceedings on the application for guardianship should be held by the Court in camera and they should be regarded as confidential and as soon as an order is made on the application for guardianship the entire proceedings including the papers and documents should be sealed." 23.We may add even at the cost of repetition that the biological parents of a child taken in adoption should not under any circumstances be able to know who are the adoptive parents of the child nor should they have any access to the home study report or the child study report or the other papers and proceedings in the application for guardianship of the child . ………………….." (Emphasis supplied.) Though the above quoted portion refers to adoption by foreign parents, the rule of confidentiality and secrecy shall concurrently apply to adoption by natives as well with no variation or distinction whatsoever. 28. Limited to the extent expressed in preceding para No. 26, principles of natural justice could be said to be applicable, but were not observed. However, since this Court finds that learned Additional District Judge is wrong in considering the main points involved, and said approach is dis-approved by this Court, it is now un-necessary to grant any further hearing at this stage against the report of the Scrutiny Officer or by remanding the case. 29. In view, of what this Court has recorded in foregoing paras, this Court cannot part with the judgment without recording its concern about what this Court has noted while perusing the record and proceedings of trial Court in this case, as in next para. 30. It is seen that all correspondence exchanged between the Court and scrutinizing agency and scrutinizing officer is open as if available for perusal for anyone as is not kept in sealed cover either during pendency of case or thereafter. One does not know whether it was produced in a sealed envelope. The statement of biological parents recorded by Scrutiny Officer appended to the report is also kept in same status. One does not know whether it was produced in a sealed envelope. The statement of biological parents recorded by Scrutiny Officer appended to the report is also kept in same status. This results in disclosing the identity of applicants, the scrutiny agency/Officer and the biological parents to one another, which fact violates the secrecy and confidentiality which is required to be maintained as is imperative in view of paras 22 and 23 of Laxmikant Pande's case as quoted in para 27. This Court, therefore, considers it necessary to direct that the maintenance of record in this fashion which violates the secrecy be avoided in future in all cases of present class. 31. While preserving the record of present case specific directions are given in operative part of order of this Court, which may serve as guideline even generally. 32. In view of the discussion, this Court concludes that the learned Additional District Judge committed an error in rejecting the application of the applicants and hence, the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. 33. Rule made absolute as follows: (A) Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (ii) of the application. (B) Rand P be returned by Registrar (Judicial) in a sealed envelope with forwarding letter and copy of this Judgment accompanying to such forwarding letter for necessary compliance. (C) Learned District Judge should segregate from record and proceedings the documents namely: (a) Record calling report from Scrutiny Agency. (b) All correspondence exchanged by Scrutiny agency with biological parents including reports. (c) Letter received from persons who are believed to be biological parents. (d) Correspondence between respondent and biological parents, thereof. (e) Affidavit Exh. 12. (f) All other record which would reveal identity of the scrutiny agency/Officer and biological parents, which is not covered by items (a) to (e) above. (D) The District Judge should preserve above classified and separated documents separately in a sealed cover in said Rand P and said sealed cover ought not be opened without judicial order in any judicial proceedings. (E) Parties shall bear respective costs. Application allowed.