Judgment :- K. Chandru, J 1. The petitioners, who are husband and wife, have filed this petition, seeking to appoint them as Guardians of the person of minor female child S. Sherley stated to have been born on 012. 2007, under Section 3,7, to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act read with Clause 17 of the Letters patent. 2. This Court on 17.04.2009 ordered for a scrutiny of the claim to be done by the Indian Council of Social Welfare (ICSW). Accordingly, the ICSW has forwarded a report, dated 27.04.2009, recommending the case of the petitioners. The report is taken on file. 3. A Social Worker of the Guild of Service, Egmore examined herself as P.W.1. According to her, the Guild of Service has given a letter of authorization, dated 10.02.2009, which is marked as Exhibit P-1. A true copy of the Certificate of Registration of the Society is marked as Exhibit P-2. The said institution is also recognized for doing in-country adoption. The attested copy of the certificate of recognition, dated 26.07.2007 is marked as Exhibit p-3. 4. It was stated by her that a minor female child was found abandoned in the premises of the Government Hospital at Perambalur and the hospital authorities, after treatment of the child in the hospital, entrusted the child to the District Social Welfare Officer, Perambalur, who in turn transferred the child to the adoption unit of the Guild of Service. A letter of transfer of a particular child is marked as Exhibit P-4. The Child Welfare Committee, Chennai granted a temporary custody of the child to the Guild of Service, vide order dated 25.01.2008 in T.C. No. 2 of 2003. The Child Welfare Committee, by order, dated 06.06.2008 in C.W.C. No. 134 of 2008, declared the child as abandoned child/free for adoption. The said order is marked as Exhibit P-5. The photograph of the minor child with negatives is marked as Exhibit P-6. 5. The petitioners approached the society, wishing to adopt a girl child. The application submitted by them along with their photographs is marked as Exhibit P-7. The marriage invitation card of the petitioners is marked as Exhibit P-8. They also decided to adopt a girl child and they felt that a child in their family would change their life with better atmosphere. A child was given for temporary custody to the petitioners on 16.06.2008. The marriage invitation card of the petitioners is marked as Exhibit P-8. They also decided to adopt a girl child and they felt that a child in their family would change their life with better atmosphere. A child was given for temporary custody to the petitioners on 16.06.2008. The child was named by the petitioners as S. Sherley. The affidavit of temporary custody of the minor child, dated 16.06.2008 is marked as Exhibit P-9. 6. It is stated by P.W.1 that the petitioners are looking after the child well and doing everything in the interest and welfare of the child. The petitioners are also keen in adopting the minor child. It is stated that the first petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the Government Department with a monthly salary of Rs.4, 000/-. His income certificate is marked as exhibit P-10. The second petitioner is working as a Data Entry Operator in the municipality and she is drawing monthly salary of Rs.9, 813/-. Her proof of income is also marked as Exhibit P-11. 7. It is also found that the petitioners are living in a fully furnished house with no liability arid the second petitioner owns a house in Pammal. P.W.I stated that they are financially stable and they will provide a happy home for the minor child. A home study report was made, which is filed and marked as Exhibit P-12. The police certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, T.P. Chattram is filed as Exhibit P-13. The General Health Certificate of the minor child, dated 10.03.2009 is marked as exhibit P-14. The follow up report, dated 23.03.2009 is marked as Exhibit P-15. 8. The first petitioner was examined as P.W.2. He generally stated that they took temporpary custody of the child and their family is a stable family and have enough means to support the family. The second petitioner is his wife and has no objection. The child was also produced before this Court. 9. This O.P. was presented before this Court on 06.04.2009 and was admitted on 15.04.2009. The scrutiny report which, is called for, was sent to this Court on 27.04.2009. The evidence was recorded on 22.04.2009. After summer recess, the matter came to be posted before this Court on 18.06.2009. It was possible for this Court to complete the process within 2-1/2 months. 10. The scrutiny report which, is called for, was sent to this Court on 27.04.2009. The evidence was recorded on 22.04.2009. After summer recess, the matter came to be posted before this Court on 18.06.2009. It was possible for this Court to complete the process within 2-1/2 months. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioners are not having any adverse interest against the minor child and the grant of guardianship of minor S. Sherley with her date of birth as 012. 2007 to the petitioners will be in the best interest and welfare of the child. 11. In the light of the above, the petitioners are appointed as Guardians for the minor female child S. Sherley and the petition is allowed as prayed, for. It is declared for all the authorities command the petition is allowed as prayed, for. It is declared for all the authorities concerned that the date of birth of the child shall be noted in the records for future proof need be called for on this ground. 12. Before parting with the case, the members of the Bar made a grievance that the guardianship matters dealt with by many District Courts are unduly delayed and the learned District Judge are not showing sufficient interest and are passing all kinds of orders. 13. In view of the same, it is necessary to refer to the earlier judgment of this Court in B. Selvaraj v. Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai and Another (2008) 7 MLJ 721. After noting similar complaints made, this Court, issued the following directions (which are contained in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said judgment) which reads as follows at pp. 725 of MLJ: “16. Before parting with this case, it must be mentioned that some of the District Courts which are processing adoption applications are not showing Enough sensitivity to the issue and at times, they are lethargic. Even, in the present case, a simple application under Section 9 (4) had taken 17 Months for reaching its finality. The learned District Judges must realize that they are dealing with the future life of a child and must show sufficient care and promptness. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, that many a times, the application involving adoption are heard in the open Court along with other criminal and civil cases. The learned District Judges must realize that they are dealing with the future life of a child and must show sufficient care and promptness. It is also brought to the notice of this Court, that many a times, the application involving adoption are heard in the open Court along with other criminal and civil cases. No special attention is shown to such cases and often times; the adoptive parents are made to attend the Court frequently like any other litigants. In stead of bringing cheers, frequent adjournments add misery to those parents who require strength and support from all concerned in their unique endeavor. They are also made to bring the infant child at every adjournment to the Court. 17. Taking note of these developments, the following directions are issued to all the District Courts, which are dealing with original petition either under HAMA or GAWA. (i). A decision in an application filed for adoption in the District Court Should not take more than four months. (ii). the court should not hear the matters in the Open Court, but preferably in the chambers of the learned judges or with special timings in the open Court itself. (iii). There should not be any frequent request to produce before the court the child to be given in adoption and the order for producing the child should be made only once. (iv). the adoptive parents must be treated with respect and due Courtesies must be shown to them. It must be understood that they are not litigants in any adversarial proceedings before the Court. (v). In the operative portion of the order passed by the District Court, in must necessarily indicate the Date of Birth of the adopted child and it must direct all authorities concerned to accept the said date of birth for all practical purposes.” 14. These directions were sent as a circular by the Registry of this Court to all Principal District Judges in Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry. Even thereafter, this Court is receiving repeated complaints from several adoption agencies and also from other organizations monitoring these issues. 15. These directions were sent as a circular by the Registry of this Court to all Principal District Judges in Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry. Even thereafter, this Court is receiving repeated complaints from several adoption agencies and also from other organizations monitoring these issues. 15. The Supreme Court, while laying down guidelines in the matter of granting adoption by the Courts, vide its judgment in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 469 : (1984) 2 SCC 244 , emphasized the need to have a time bounded disposal of such matters. It is necessary to refer to the following passage found in paragraph 22 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: 22….This entire procedure shall be completed by the Court expeditiously and as far as possible within a period of two months, from the date of filing of the application for guardianship of the child. 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….” 16. One Adoption agency in its complaint to this Court projected its grievance which is as follows: “Even though our cases such as adopting a child from the orphanage are a social cause, but the District Court could not give any special importance in those cases due to above pressure of work. It is regrettable to state that all the adoption parents are suffering with enormous problems due to delay in the court, the parents without getting the order from the Court suffered heavily since the admission in schools and getting community certificates, birth certificate are all delayed. The parents in the adoption cases are most probably from out of station and they have to travel from out of station and they have to travel from far off places to appear before the Court, but due to non functioning of the Court (sic) they have been asked to reappear in the next hearings and thereby the parents are suffering because they could not continuously apply for leave from their employer.” “Further, the District Judge concerned is questioning the adoptive parents about the welfare of the child, about their employment and about their status, etc. on the interest of justice. on the interest of justice. But, the adoptive parents are very new to the Courts feel uneasy and also suffered very much about the questionings since they feel that they have been criticized by the Courts. But on the interest of justice only the judge asked those questions but the parents are unhappy about the vast questioning and critical questioning. The District Judge may be requested about not to ask critical questions to the parents explaining about the parents mind and their inability. The adoptive parents are already worried in the family about not having child on their own and as a last resort only with a helping hand to the destitute children they willingly come forward to adopt a child from an orphanage. Even after that upon the legal formalities, the Courts questioning made them unhappy.” “Further, the parents have been asked to wait in the Courts up to 5 p.m. and these adoption cases have been taken lastly in the Court. Thereby the parents are suffering in the Court hall with children and waited in the Court whole day. Here also the judge may be requested to take our cases at the earliest to help the presents and the children….” 17. An another monitoring organization also made a similar complaint. In their complaint, it was stated that in one District (name given is omitted), out of 100 adoption petitions filed during the year 2007, only one alone was disposed of and some of the O.Ps are pending for more than two years. In the same representation, it was also stated that in an another adjacent District (name of the District omitted), the District Judge is directing the child to be produced every 6 months before the Court with out assigning any reason. Therefore, a request was made to this Court to issue suitable directions to all the Subordinate Courts. 18. In the light of these developments, this Court is constrained to issue the following directions for compliance by all the District Courts dealing with the adoption and guardianship matters. 19. It must be stated that neither under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 not under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is any provision authorizing the Court for the production of the child before the Court once in six months. 19. It must be stated that neither under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 not under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is any provision authorizing the Court for the production of the child before the Court once in six months. Such demands are not only repugnant to the provisions of the Act, but are also not in the interest of the minor child. 20. Further, it is also to be noted that while the Act contemplates reports to be called for from the guardians maintaining properties of the minor, there is no obligation for the Guardians to produce the child before the Court without any relevance or purpose. It will be a different case if any complaint is received by the Court from any quarter that a child was ill-treated or not living in a conductive atmosphere. Then in such cases, proper action may be taken. 21. It is also seen from the complaints received that the Courts are not adhering to the time schedule prescribed in the earlier circular sent in a case of B. Selvaraj v. Commissioner, Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai and Another (supra). If allegations made by these agencies are true, then it is really a sorry state of affairs. There will be no difficulty in adhering to the time schedule, since the agencies concerned do proper documentation. In case of doubts, a further scrutiny can be ordered by scrutiny Agency. But all these steps should not consume more time. 22. It is also stated that no Court shall order for production of minor child once in six months as a matter of course. It is unnecessary for the District Judges to put insensitive questions to the adoptive parents and make enquiries. They are not relevant in determining as to what is in the best interests of the child. It is also made clear that none of the three laws, i.e. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, require adoptive parents to be infertile in order to get an adopted child. Therefore, no parents need be asked questions regarding the infertility of the petitioners. 23. This Court is constrained to issue such directions, since there has been repeated representations from the persons concerned, complaining against more than one District Court. Therefore, no parents need be asked questions regarding the infertility of the petitioners. 23. This Court is constrained to issue such directions, since there has been repeated representations from the persons concerned, complaining against more than one District Court. The Registrar General is directed to circularize this judgment to all the Principal District Judges in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry within one week from the date of the order for their strict compliance.