Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1035 (ALL)

Timothi Paul Westrom v. State Of U. P.

2017-04-18

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 2. The present revision has been filed against the judgment and the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli in Adoption Application No.25 of 2016, under Section 56 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act), 2015, whereby the application of the revisionists has been allowed with condition that the revisionists shall deposit Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit in the name of child. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 in the present case is the Manager/Secretary of Gautam Budh Sewa Samiti, Chandauli which is a registered organization as per Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act), 2015, bearing registration No.209 of 2012 issued by the Women Welfare Department, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and its registration is valid upto 6.1.2018. It is next contended that the institution has been issued with a User Id. No.UP47SAA by the Central Adoption Resource Authority i.e. an autonomous body of the Ministry of Women and Child Development Government of India. It is argued that one boy, namely Raju, who is an Orphan, whose date of birth is 12.4.2011 was provided to the aforesaid institution on 8.10.2012 by the orders of Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli, thereafter, on 11.12.2012, 14.8.2013 and 12.10.2012 news items were published regarding availability of the orphan child for adoption but no one claimed him; as such in pursuance of the order dated 3.3.2014 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Chandauli, the said Orphan child was declared free. It is next argued that the revisionists who are spouses, had made an application online on 2.9.2015 before the Central Adoption Resources Authority, New Delhi regarding adoption of an Orphan child, thereafter, reference was made on 14.12.2015 before the revisionist regarding the adoption of Orphan Raju, which was accepted on 18.12.2015, thereafter all formalities were completed on 30.12.2015 by the authorities' concerned and was signed by the revisionists on 2.2.2016 and the same was delivered before the opposite party no.2 on 24.2.2016, thereafter, no objection certificate was issued on 28.3.2016. 4. 4. It is next argued that the prospective adoptive parents are financially sound as such an application was moved under the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act), 2015 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli regarding adoption of the Orphan child namely Raju on 18.11.2016. It is next argued that the statement of the opposite party no.2 was recorded before the concerned Court below and the documentary evidences i.e. no objection certificate dated 28.3.2016, Special Power of Attorney in favour of the deponent, undertakings by the adoption agency on behalf of the prospective adoptive parents, adoption home study report, undertaking by adoptive parents, child welfare report agreement as well as other documents were also submitted before the concerned Court below. 5. Emphasis has been laid by the leaned counsel for the applicant on the report of Central Adoption Resource Agency dated 16.3.2016 to the effect that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited for adoption and the United State Central Agency has also agreed for adoption of the said orphan child Raju, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying this revision. 6. It is further argued that after going through the entire evidence, formalities, reports and the statements on the record and after satisfying himself that the child has been declared free for adoption, the adoption application moved by the opposite party no.2 was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli vide order dated 19.1.2017 imposing condition of depositing Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit in favour of the said orphan child. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that while imposing the condition of depositing Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chandauli had totally ignored the provisions of Section 61 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act), 2015 which provides that no consideration or reward will be received for adoption except as permitted under the adoption regulations. It is further submitted that prospective adoptive parents of the child have already deposited the required fee under the adoption regulation and also the service charge. It is further submitted that prospective adoptive parents of the child have already deposited the required fee under the adoption regulation and also the service charge. It is thus, argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that while imposing the condition depositing Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit in favour of the said orphan child in the order dated 19.1.2017 the concerned Court below had totally ignored the provisions of Section 61(c) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Act), 2015 and also the concerned Court below has not considered the fact of welfare of the said orphan child, who is going to be adopted by the revisionist, whose future would be secured with his adoptive parents and the child would also be getting proper love & care of a normal household. It is, therefore, argued that the condition of depositing Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent this Court is of the opinion that the condition of depositing Rs.10 lakhs by way of fixed deposit in favour of the child imposed in the order dated 19.1.2017 is bad in law and is hereby set aside. 9. The present revision is accordingly, disposed off. No order as to costs.