Judgment R.D. Kothari, J.—Being aggrieved by the order passed by Additional District Judge, Bharuch in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 43 of 2009, the applicant has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 2. It appears that the applicant wanted to adopt the child. Therefore, the applicant has preferred the present APPLICATION under Section 9(4) of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act. The said application came to be rejected by the Additional District Judge. The principal ground for rejection of the application is, the child is Muslim child and under Hindu Adoption Act, only Hindu child can be adopted. 3. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioner and Ms. Rekha Patel, learned APP for the respondent. 4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sudhir Nanavati for the petitioner after referring the facts of the present case has drawn attention to the police report (Annexure ‘J’) dated 03.10.2008, wherein it is stated that unclaimed child aged about 2½ years is found near Damar Plant compound and on being asked his name, the child has said his name as – ‘SHOAIB’. Relying solely on this report, the Court has rejected the applicant’s application holding that the Muslim child cannot be adopted. The learned Senior Advocate also drawn attention to medical report (Annexure ‘K’). Relying on the same, it was submitted that child cannot be considered as a Muslim child. 5. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the applicant is a unmarried lady. As she wanted to adopt a child, she had applied for the same to the Child Welfare Department, Gandhinagar. In communication with the said department, she was given a list of Institutions, from where she can adopt the child. Accordingly, on the basis of said information, she had applied at Bharuch. On making application by her, her application was referred to Child Welfare Committee. The Child Welfare Committee on the basis of report, submitted by Superintendent, Nari Sanrakshan Kendra, Bharuch has recommended that the child be given in adoption to the applicant. Accordingly, the applicant had applied for adoption of child before District Courts, Bharuch. In pursuant to her application, a public notice was issued on 12.10.2009. Thereafter, when the present application came up for consideration, the Additional District Judge was pleased to reject the application. 6. In the present case, the child is labeled as a Muslim child mainly on the police report. In pursuant to her application, a public notice was issued on 12.10.2009. Thereafter, when the present application came up for consideration, the Additional District Judge was pleased to reject the application. 6. In the present case, the child is labeled as a Muslim child mainly on the police report. On perusal of the said report, it says that P.I. of Jhagdiya Police Station had found the child on 03.10.2008 near Damar Plant compound. The said unclaimed child aged about 2½ years, on being asked his name, revealed his name as ‘SHOAIB’. The report further says that he has said his name in “Hindi Muslim” language. The report makes request to Remand Home to keep the child till the guardian or parents of the child is found. 7. Applicant’s application came to be rejected as observed above only on the ground that child is Muslim. Learned APP opposing the present application has urged that Muslim child cannot be adopted under the Act. Howsoever, sympathy, we have with the applicant, the present application cannot be granted. 8. It is not possible to agree with the submission of learned APP. It would not be incorrect to say that there is no reliable material to say that child sought to be adopted is a Muslim child. The police report shows unclaimed child is found by P.I. When it was found, he was aged – as per the report – about 2½ years. It is clear from the report that child may have given the name, however the name given by the child is – SHOAIB, or something else that sounds like SHOAIB is difficult to say, inasmuch as the report says the child has given his name in Hindi Muslim language. What does P.I. wants to say in respect of language, is difficult to appreciate. It seems that child has not stated his name in Gujarati. It is doubtful that the name as attributed by P.I., of the child, is really stated by the child or some other name. It was submitted at the time of hearing that language can be Hindi but language like Hindi Muslim language is unheard of. The submission has substance. Beside that it can be said name and language are two different things. Name would be same in any language. It was submitted at the time of hearing that language can be Hindi but language like Hindi Muslim language is unheard of. The submission has substance. Beside that it can be said name and language are two different things. Name would be same in any language. Say of the police that child gave name in the said language is, therefore, not inspiring confidence qua name of child. Relying only on the said report, deciding the caste of the child is erroneous. The net result of the order of trial Court is, child whose caste is unknown, is labeled as a Muslim child. 9. At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the child is very happy with the applicant and applicant is sincerely looking after the child. Learned advocate has also shown some photographs. It was also submitted that the child at present is studying in a reputed school at Ahmedabad. It was also submitted that the applicant has placed a considerable amount in Fixed Deposit in the name of child. Annexure ‘K’ is a medical certificate. It is issued by R.M.O. Ahmedabad. The learned advocate has pointed out that subsequent to the rejection of the applicant’s application, the applicant has referred the child to Civil Hospital for examination because unlike in Hindu, there is practice in Muslim to circumcise the child. The applicant sought to verify the “caste” of the child on that account, and so the child was referred for medical examination. Incidentally, R.M.O. is also a Muslim. Dr. M.F. Shaikh has certified that “patient is not circumcised”. 10. In the facts of the present case, it is not possible to agree with the submission of learned APP that child is a Muslim child. Section 9 (5), inter alia mentions two considerations that Court to bear in mind while examining the application under this provision; one welfare of child and secondly, considering the age and understanding of the child, his/her wishes. It is not possible to say that answer to these considerations would not be in favour of the granting the application. In this regard it may be stated that after the matter was heard and the order was dictated as above, the learned advocate was requested to ask the applicant to keep the child present. Accordingly, the child was kept present. I had talked with child in the chamber. In this regard it may be stated that after the matter was heard and the order was dictated as above, the learned advocate was requested to ask the applicant to keep the child present. Accordingly, the child was kept present. I had talked with child in the chamber. Child appeared to be happy in the present environment and in his ongoing life. He seem to be happy at school and at home. He appeared to be normal, natural and not tutored. The child is with the applicant since 2009. It is possible to agree with the submission that child is properly mixed up with the present applicant. It is possible to say that welfare of the child is lay in granting the application. 11. As to the caste, it may also be noted that material on record is not sufficient to examine the issue and to draw any conclusion on this. At best, it can be said that caste of the child is not known. Let the child of unknown caste be acquired the caste of the applicant. Annexure ‘J’ is not reliable document. Doubt about the caste should not take precedence over the welfare of the child. In the circumstances of the case, it is possible to say that rejecting the applicant’s application on the belief that child is Muslim, does not sound just and legal. 12. Centuries ago Shakespeare, had raised the question what is in name ? The question is very much relevant in the present case. Name given to the child by the applicant aptly matches / replies in many ways – the question raised herein. 13. In view of above, the order under challenge is quashed and set aside. The applicant is hereby permitted to adopt the child named “MOKSH”. The applicant may apply to the concerned Municipality etc. for entering the name of the child “MOKSH” as applicant’s child. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute.