ORDER : This revision petition is filed under Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, (for short, ‘the Act’) challenging the order dated 27.03.2017 passed by VIII Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Misc. Application No.212/2016. 2. The facts that gave rise to this revision petition are as follows : 3. Petitioner No.1 – Swami Vivekanand Seva Prathistan is a recognized and registered Specialised Adoption Agency having its office at Belagavi. The petitioners No.2 and 3, a legally wedded couple settled at United States of America, desired to adopt an abandoned child, Kum.Manjula born on 05.04.2014. Their application to adopt the child was routed through an Authorised Foreign Adoption Agency, namely, HOLT International Child Service, U.S.A. The petitioners No.2 and 3 executed a power of attorney in favour of the Assistant Manager of petitioner No.1 – Agency, for making an application before the Court for obtaining necessary adoption orders. The VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, who decided this application refused to grant permission by giving the following reasons: (i) The petitioners No.2 and 3 have already adopted a female child. (ii) The petitioner No.1 is represented by its Assistant Manager and he represents petitioners No.2 and 3 also in the capacity of a power of attorney holder executed by them in his favour. In adoption, giving and taking of a child is most important. The same person cannot act in dual capacity as a giver and taker. (iii) The proposed adoption does not appear to be in the best interest of the child. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned order suffers from illegality and the reasons given for rejecting the application are not at all acceptable. The court which decided the application doesn’t say that all the procedural requirements as contemplated under the Guidelines Governing Adoption of Children, 2015 (for short, ‘the Guidelines’) relating to inter-country adoption have not been complied with. The documents to be furnished before the Court are enlisted in Schedule – 8. The petitioners have produced all the documents. In fact, the court below has given a finding that all the legal requirements have been met with. The documents to be furnished before the Court are enlisted in Schedule – 8. The petitioners have produced all the documents. In fact, the court below has given a finding that all the legal requirements have been met with. According to the Guidelines, the petitioners No.2 and 3 have to execute a power of attorney in favour of an authorised functionary of Specialized Adoption Agency for the purpose of submitting a petition before the court on their behalf. The adoption order passed by the court cannot be equated with the adoption that takes place according to the religious customs. This is a case of inter-country adoption. The entire procedure is governed by the Guidelines issued in the year 2015. The adoption order passed by the court itself is sufficient for adoption of a child by foreign nationals. Actual giving and taking of a child in adoption is not contemplated under the Guidelines. There is no bar for adoption of a second child by the prospective adoptive parents. According to the Guidelines, the couple with more than four children should not be considered for adoption. This is not the case here. The petitioners No.2 and 3 have already adopted a child and the documents produced by them clearly show that the said child is happily living under the care and custody of petitioners No.2 and 3. When the Home Study report and other documents are to the effect that the petitioners No.2 and 3 are quite healthy and financially capable to adopt one more child, they are eligible to adopt the abandoned child Kum. Manjula. The Guidelines also provide for post adoption care to be taken by authorized Foreign Adoption Agency or the Central Authority or Indian Diplomatic Mission or the concerned Government Department. Therefore, the last reason given by the court below that the proposed adoption is not in the best interest of the child is baseless. The learned counsel submitted that the court below has passed an erroneous order which needs to be set right by allowing this revision petition. 5. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the following opinion : a. The procedure relating to adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children in this country is being regulated by the Guidelines governing adoption of children. These Guidelines do provide for in-country and inter-country adoption. 5. After hearing the learned counsel, I am of the following opinion : a. The procedure relating to adoption of orphan, abandoned and surrendered children in this country is being regulated by the Guidelines governing adoption of children. These Guidelines do provide for in-country and inter-country adoption. The child to be adopted must be declared by the Child Welfare Committee, to be legally free for adoption. The prospective adoptive parents should be physically, mentally and emotionally stable, financially capable and motivated to adopt a child and that they should not have any life threatening medical condition. Guideline No.5 deals with eligibility criteria for the prospective adoptive parents. b. In this case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner No.1 is a recognized and registered Specialized Adoption Agency. The child Kum.Manjula is also declared as legally free for adoption. Petitioner No.1, who made an application before the court below produced all the documents, as enlisted in Schedule-8 which have to be produced necessarily. Based on these documents, the court below came to conclusion that the child was legally free for adoption and that the adoptive parents i.e., petitioners No.2 and 3 are physically and mentally fit and financially capable. c. But the three reasons given by the court below for rejecting the application do not appear to be sustainable. The first reason is that petitioners No.2 and 3 have already adopted a female child. This cannot be a good ground for rejecting of the application because Guideline No.5 (j) clearly states that couple with more than four children shall not be considered for adoption. In this case, petitioners No.2 and 3 have adopted one child, namely, Ida, after complying with all procedural formalities. The material available on record shows that the said child Ida is happily staying with petitioners No.2 and 3. It is also the case of the petitioners No.2 and 3 that because of biological problems, petitioner No.3 is not able to conceive and this was the reason that motivated them for adopting a child. When the home stay report, medical report and financial stability report show that petitioners No.2 and 3 can adopt another child, the court below should not have come to the conclusion that just because they have already adopted a child, they cannot adopt one more child. When the home stay report, medical report and financial stability report show that petitioners No.2 and 3 can adopt another child, the court below should not have come to the conclusion that just because they have already adopted a child, they cannot adopt one more child. d. With regard to second reason, as aforementioned, it is to be mentioned here that the view so expressed by the court below is wrong. If a child has to be adopted in accordance with the Guidelines, the order passed by the court itself is sufficient. The actual giving and taking of the child in adoption is not contemplated under the Guidelines. Schedule-8 shows that whenever foreign residents want to adopt a child from India, they have to execute a power of attorney in favour of authorized functionary of a Specialized Adoption Centre to present a petition on their behalf in the court. Accordingly, petitioners No.2 and 3 executed a power of attorney in favour of the Assistant Manager of petitioner No.1 to comply with this requirement. The said power of attorney is marked as Ex.P-1. So when this requirement has been met with, the court below should have observed that P.W.1, the power of attorney holder representing petitioner No.1 – institution was entitled to give the child in adoption to petitioners No.2 and 3 by following other requirements of law. e. The court below has given another reason that the proposed adoption appears to be not in the best interest of the child. To arrive at this conclusion, there is no evidence. Moreover, the Guidelines do provide for post adoption care to be taken by the Specialized Adoption Agency. Guideline No.20 deals with this. In case it is found that there is adjustment problem for the child with the adoptive family, the foreign Adoption Agency or the Central Authority or concerned Government Department has to take necessary steps for withdrawing the child from the custody of the adoptive parents and to make suitable alternate arrangement. It appears that the court below has not bestowed its attention to Guideline No.20 to arrive at a conclusion that adoption is not in the best interest of the child. 6. Therefore, for the above reasons, I come to the conclusion that the reasons given by the court below for rejecting the application are not sustainable. It appears that the court below has not bestowed its attention to Guideline No.20 to arrive at a conclusion that adoption is not in the best interest of the child. 6. Therefore, for the above reasons, I come to the conclusion that the reasons given by the court below for rejecting the application are not sustainable. The application should have been allowed by the court below having regard to compliance of other legal requirements. Hence, the following : ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 27.03.2017 passed by VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in Misc. Application No.212/2016 is set aside. iii. The child, Kum.Manjula, which is declared to be legally free for adoption is permitted to be given in adoption to petitioners No.2 and 3 by petitioner No.1 by following the process of law as contemplated in the Guidelines.