Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2476 (MAD)

J. Gomathi v. Ashish Vikram Singh

2018-08-10

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2018
ORDER : 1. Application No.1152 of 2018 is filed to recall the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by this Court in O.P.No.900 of 2017 declaring the respondents as adopted parents of the female minor child Ms. Mahalakshmi and handing over the custody of the child to the applicant being the biological mother and Application No.1153 of 2018 is filed to grant leave to the applicant to implead in order dated 29.11.2017 in O.P.No.900 of 2017. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she married one Kannadasan. Out of the said wedlock a female child was born on 25.08.2016. Due to frequent quarrel between the husband and wife the child was entrusted to All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram by the applicant's husband's first wife. They in turn handed over the child to the Child Welfare Committee, Chengalpattu, Kanchipuram District. The Child Welfare Committee in turn handed over the child to Holy Apostle Convent, Butt Road, Chennai. So, the applicant moved writ of Habeas Corpus on 29.06.2017 before this Court. During the pendency of Habeas Corpus Petition, the child was found in the custody of Holy Apostle Convent. Before Holy Apostle Convent appearance in the Habeas Corpus Proceedings, Original Side of this Court has passed the order in O.P.No.900 of 2017 on 29.11.2017 entrusting the custody of the minor child Ms. Mahalakshmi to the respondents declaring them as adoptive parents of the minor child. According to the petitioner, the above order was passed ex-parte without her consent. The authorities under Juvenile Justice Act, despite the pendency of the Habeas Corpus proceedings, suppressed the same before the Court and got the orders in O.P.No.900 of 2017. Accordingly, Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of giving liberty to the applicant to take recourse of law. Hence, the petitioner prayed for recalling the order. 3. The respondents have filed counter stating that they registered online as per the process of Central Adoption Resource Authority (hereinafter referred to as CARA) for child adoption during March 2016 and adopted the child on 10.10.2017 as per law after following the procedures and guidelines of CARA and ultimately they have declared as adoptive parents by this Court in O.P.No.900 of 2017. 4. 4. Before going to the rival contention of the parties the following facts can be culled out from the typed set of papers filed by both sides: On 26.09.2016 one month old female baby, parents name not known, was produced before the Child Welfare Committee (hereinafter referred to as CWC) Chengalpattu by Child Line 1098, Kancheepuram District, along with one lady. The CWC passed a short time placement order in Profile No.1540 of 2016 and as per that order, the female child was placed in the Holy Apostle Convent Baby Home, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai. Thereafter, on 31.01.2017 the child, by then was 5 months old, produced before the CWC. On a petition seeking temporary custody of the child filed by the Holy Apostle Convent Babies Home, CWC, Chengalpattu of its order dated 31.1.2017 T.C.No.001/2017, entrusted the temporary custody of the female child to the above said home with certain conditions. On 23.03.2017 a publication was given in Malai Malar Tamil Daily to locate the biological parents of the child. Since there was no claim for the said child, the institution viz., Holy Apostle Convent Babies Home, which was given temporary custody by CWC submitted required documents for declaring the child fit for adoption. On 16.06.2017 CWC after perusing the report of the Social worker, passed an order declaring the child legally free for adoption. It is also pertinent to note that the Holy Apostle Convent Babies Home, St. Thomas Mount Chennai is a registered home under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. This is also not in dispute. In the meanwhile, the respondents viz., the adoptive parents have registered in the Child Adoption and Resources Information and Guidance System with Registration No. VT 8423. Based on the home study report conducted as per the regulation (5) of the CARA, the respondents were found suitable by the Adoption Committee to adopt the female child. Based on the Child Study Report of the Holy Apostle Convent, read-option has been undertaken, agreement signed by the respondent and the child has been given in adoption for the best care of the respondents on 10.10.2017. Prior to that on 09.10.2017 Adoption Committee meeting was also held. The Committee considered the documents produced by the respondents found that the respondents are suitable to adopt the child. The Probation Officer was also one of the members in the Adoption Committee Meeting held on 17.11.2017. Prior to that on 09.10.2017 Adoption Committee meeting was also held. The Committee considered the documents produced by the respondents found that the respondents are suitable to adopt the child. The Probation Officer was also one of the members in the Adoption Committee Meeting held on 17.11.2017. Thereafter, finally the respondents obtained order from this Court on 29.11.2017 declaring them as parents of the minor child. 5. Before such order passed by this Court, for the first time the applicant claiming to be the biological mother of the child filed H.C.P. before this Court in HCP.No.1118 of 2017. On 29.6.2017 notice was ordered. On 4.7.2017 it was posted for hearing and on 13.7.2017 during the hearing of the case it came to be known that instead of CWC Chengalpattu the petitioner has made the Government Special Home (Juvenile) as party. Hence, amendment was sought by the petitioner. Thereafter, when the matter was posted on 17.07.2017 again further amendment was sought to amend the age of the minor child. Hence the case was adjourned to 19.07.2017 and on 24.07.2017 amendment was not carried out by the petitioner. Only on 25.07.2017 amendment with regard to the age of the child was carried out. On subsequent hearing on 08.08.2017 fresh notice was ordered to the 5th respondent said to be the husband of the applicant herein. On 21.08.2017 the applicant and the 5th respondent were present in the Habeas Corpus proceedings. They were directed to make a visit to the CWC and identify the child and the matter was posted on 01.09.2017. However, the applicant did not go to the CWC as directed by the Division Bench. When the matter was again called in Court on 13.09.2017, it was contended by the applicant that she gave the baby to the cradle baby scheme and informed the Court that she did not give to CWC. They have handed over the baby to the District Social Welfare office. Hence the Court has asked to implead District Social Welfare office. Thereafter on 3.11.2017 the District Social Welfare office filed a report to the effect that they did not receive any such child from the applicant. Thereafter, when the matter was posted on 24.11.2017, the amendment in the cause title were corrected and status report was filed by the police indicating that the baby was handed over to the custody of Holy Apostle Convent. Thereafter, when the matter was posted on 24.11.2017, the amendment in the cause title were corrected and status report was filed by the police indicating that the baby was handed over to the custody of Holy Apostle Convent. Thereafter, Holy Apostle Convent Babies Home was made as a party to the proceedings and they were required to be present before the Court on 15.12.2017. On 15.12.2017, it is brought to the notice of the Court that adoption has already been over and the orders also passed by the Court. Therefore, H.C.P. was disposed of on the ground that no orders can be passed in the captioned petition. Liberty, though, is given to the petitioner to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, albeit, in accordance with law. 6. By passing the above order this court has given liberty to the applicant to resort appropriate remedy, albeit in accordance with law, since the right of the adoptive parents appears to have been accrued. In the meanwhile, Division Bench also held that adoptive parents would have to be heard by a proper forum in the proceedings if any taken out by the applicant. In the above back ground the present application has been filed to recall the order passed by the Court in O.P.No.900 of 2017 declaring the respondents as adoptive parents of the minor child. 7. Mr.R. Sankarasubbu learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that though the HCP was pending before this Court, CWC did not brought to the notice of the single Judge about the pendency of Habeas Corpus Petition. The conduct of CWC and their proceedings itself shows that the entire proceedings have been taken out in violation of the principle of natural justice. The CWC has not conducted any enquiry to locate the biological mother of the child as mandated under law. Having known that one Ramya said to have handed over the child, they have not made any enquiry for locating the biological parents of the minor child. On the other hand, mechanically, they declared the child free for adoption without following any procedure. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the applicant is the biological mother of the child. The first wife of her husband cunningly handed over the child to the child line which has been established on record. On the other hand, mechanically, they declared the child free for adoption without following any procedure. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the applicant is the biological mother of the child. The first wife of her husband cunningly handed over the child to the child line which has been established on record. The said Ramya was not summoned by CWC before ordering the child free for adoption. Further no publication as mandated under rules was effected before passing such orders by CWC. At the time of handing over the child, the child was aged only one month. Though, as per rules CWC ought to have conducted enquiry within 60 days whereas they declared the child free for adoption on 16.06.2017. Even after HCP was filed, CWC has not brought the same to the notice of the court. When the order of CWC declaring the child free for adoption itself is against the rules and Juvenile Justice Act, the adoption given by the Adoption Committee is not valid. The applicant being the biological mother is entitled to the custody of the child. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that merely because the applicant has no financial status, that cannot be a ground to deny her legal rights. 9. Ms. Bader Sayeed, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents have followed all the proper procedures stipulated for adoption. They decided to adopt a child, in March 2016, they registered themselves online as per the process of Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) for child adoption. The petitioners were matched with the child on June 23, 2016, following which they diligently put together the required documentation for the purpose of adoption. After all these formalities were completed they visited the SAA, Holy Apostles Convent, and were interviewed by the Child Welfare Committee, Kanchipuram District, following which they received the child in foster case on 10.10.2017. The respondents also sent photographic and video updated on the Child's progress, by email and phone to SAA. There is no procedural irregularity has been demonstrated by the applicant before this Court. At the time of adoption there was no claim from the biological parents. The respondents also sent photographic and video updated on the Child's progress, by email and phone to SAA. There is no procedural irregularity has been demonstrated by the applicant before this Court. At the time of adoption there was no claim from the biological parents. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondents having become the parents of the minor child in accordance with the procedure established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are entitled for legal protections ensured under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 including finality of the process of adoption and maintaining the confidentiality of the identity of the child and the adoptive parents and hence prayed for dismissal of the applications. 10. Mr.V. Lakshminarayanan, Amicus curiae has referred to various provisions of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of the Children Act, 2015 and the Rules issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development and it is the contention of the learned Amicus Curiea the "abandoned child" means a child deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, who has been declared as abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry. It is his further contention that once the child was given in adoption by legal process the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes lawful child of the adoptive parents. As per Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the committee ought to have declared the child free for adoption within two months from the date of production of the child, when the child is below two years of age. Whereas in this case the CWC declared the child free for adoption after 9 months. He further submitted that CWC taking into consideration of enquiry report from the Social Worker declared the child free from adoption on 16.06.2017. It is also submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that while declaring the child free for adoption orders have to be passed following Form-25. Form-25 is applicable both the surrender of child and also the abandoned child. The CWC however, mechanically followed form 25 published in the Gazette of Ministry of Women and Child Development notification dated 21.09.2016. 11. It is also submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that while declaring the child free for adoption orders have to be passed following Form-25. Form-25 is applicable both the surrender of child and also the abandoned child. The CWC however, mechanically followed form 25 published in the Gazette of Ministry of Women and Child Development notification dated 21.09.2016. 11. In the light of the above submissions, the point arise for consideration is (1) whether the petitioner can be declared to be a biological mother of the minor female child which was given in adoption legally? and (2) Whether she is entitled to assail the orders of this Court passed on 29.11.2017 in O.P.No.900 of 2017 declaring the respondents as parents of the minor child? Points: 12. The applicant claims to be biological mother of the minor child claims right over the minor child said to have born on 25.08.2016. It is the contention of the petitioner that the child was born to her through one Kannadasan, her husband. Thereafter, due to certain dispute, her husband and his first wife handed over the child to the police station. They handed over the same to CWC Chengalpattu. Thereafter the child was given in adoption. 13. Before coming to this court, she has filed Habeas Corpus Petition in HCP No.1118 of 2017 on 29.06.2017 wherein CWC has not been made as a party. Thereafter despite order of the Court to amend the respondent's name properly, amendment was carried out only on 24.11.2017. In HCP it is pleaded by the petitioner that she was a widow, she re-married Mr. Kannadasan and his relatives forcibly removed the child from her custody on 29.04.2016 and the child was handed over to the Inspector of Police, Women Police, Kanchipuram. The factual aspects pleaded by her in HCP and this application appears to be contradictory. In HCP she has stated that as if relative of her husband forcibly removed the child from herself whereas she has taken a stand before this Court that her husband's first wife handed over the child to the police station. In this regard, I have also seen the status report filed by the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram. In HCP she has stated that as if relative of her husband forcibly removed the child from herself whereas she has taken a stand before this Court that her husband's first wife handed over the child to the police station. In this regard, I have also seen the status report filed by the Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram. In fact, the child was born to the petitioner and one Kannadasan in their illegal connection, after 20 days of delivery of child the said Kannadasan took the child to his house, thereafter his wife and his brother-in-law handed over the child to Government child line 1098 at Chengalpattu. The child line placed the baby to the Holy Apostle Convent, Butt Road, Chennai, following the rules. The report of the Inspector filed during the HCP proceedings clearly indicate that the child was not handed over to the police as claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the allegation that the child was originally handed over to the police station is appears to be false; On the other hand, the child was handed over to the child line. Having taken the stand that the child was given to the police station by one Ramya on 13.09.2017 when the HCP was pending before the Court, the petitioner has taken a stand that she handed over the baby in the Tamil Nadu Government Cradle Baby Scheme. Therefore, this Court called for report from the District Social Welfare office and he was also impleaded. On 03.11.2017 the District Social Welfare Officer filed a report to the effect that they did not receive any such child from the petitioner. 14. It is to be noted that having alleged that child was forcibly removed from her within 20 days after birth and handed over to the police station, Kancheepuram, she has not taken any steps either to approach the police station or to CWC. For the first time she has filed HCP on 04.09.2017. Even in that petition she has not made CWC as a party. The child study report of Holy Apostle Convent indicates that the child was abandoned on 26.09.2016 and on the same day it was handed over to the Child Welfare Committee, Chengalpattu by the Child Line Staff of Kancheepuram. For the first time she has filed HCP on 04.09.2017. Even in that petition she has not made CWC as a party. The child study report of Holy Apostle Convent indicates that the child was abandoned on 26.09.2016 and on the same day it was handed over to the Child Welfare Committee, Chengalpattu by the Child Line Staff of Kancheepuram. On 16.06.2017 the Child Welfare Committee declared the child legally free for adoption on the following basis: “Declaration submitted by the District Social Welfare Officer and District Child Protection Unit and the Child Care Institution of Specialized Adoption Agency concerned to the effects as required under Section (1) of Section 40 of the rules framed under the Adoption Regulations, but nobody has approached them for claiming the child as biological parents or legal guardian as of the said declaration.” They passed the order under Adoption Regulations 2(5), 6 (13) and (17). 15. The committee made enquiry as per the regulations of the Act and issued order in Form 25. The CWC passed order in Form 25. Form 25 contained certain conditions in passing the order. Some terms have been inadvertently typed in the order of CWC. The rule mandates the order to be passed for declaring child free for adoption on the basis of the enquiry report of the probation officer/Child Welfare Officer/Social Worker/Case Worker /any other as the case may be. Report of the Social Worker dated 5.04.17 also shows that after issuing proper advertisement not only by the Holy Apostle Convent but also Child Welfare Committee to locate the biological claimants of the child, as no one approached the CWC, the order declaring the child abandoned was passed. It is further to be noted that immediately when the child was handed over to the Holy Apostle Convent they also given a temporary custody as per the order of the CWC dated 31.01.2017 following the rules. Therefore, merely because the order declaring the child under Form No.25 was inadvertently incorporated General format that consent of the biological parents obtained, it cannot be said that the biological parents were also present and given consent. Such inadvertent drafting of the order cannot be a ground to hold that the entire proceedings of CWC is not in accordance with law. 16. Of course CWC declared the child free for adoption on 16.06.2017 after 9 months as against 2 months period. Such inadvertent drafting of the order cannot be a ground to hold that the entire proceedings of CWC is not in accordance with law. 16. Of course CWC declared the child free for adoption on 16.06.2017 after 9 months as against 2 months period. As per Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 the committee ought to have declared the child free for adoption within two months from the date of production of the child, when the child is below two years of age. But in the meanwhile the respondents have registered for adoption in registration No.PrUt49748303 dated 17.03.2016 following the procedures. The Home Study Report is also submitted by the officers at Delhi on 9.9.2016 by the office of the Children Protection Officer Gautam Budh Nagar Delhi. The Children Protection Officer while conducting the home study of the prospective adoptive parents also taken note of the financial conditions of the adoptive parents and their status in the society. 1st respondent herein is Vice President of Product Development in Newgen Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., The second respondent is also Brnad Consultant. The financial status was also taken note of by the officer who conducted Home Study. Though the CWC has not conducted any home study, but the Holy Apostle Convent which was entrusted with the custody of the child, from the date of handing over the child on 26.09.2016 they have conducted the Child Study Report and filed after following the guidelines of Pre-adoption care undertaking executed in between Holy Apostles Convent and respondents. Thereafter the respondents moved this Court for adoption. Pending the case before this Court, the committee of CWC considered the respondents as suitable persons to adopt the child by its meeting held on 9.10.2017. Thereafter pre-adoption undertaking was executed by the parties pending adoption of the concerned court. It is also to be noted that prior to the adoption, while short term placement of the child was given to the Holy Apostle Convent it is specifically noted that the father and mother names of the child is not known. However, one Ramya name has been noted on 29.6.2016 when the child was placed for temporary custody in the Holy Apostle Convent. 17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the adoption was given even without enquiring Ramya. However, one Ramya name has been noted on 29.6.2016 when the child was placed for temporary custody in the Holy Apostle Convent. 17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the adoption was given even without enquiring Ramya. It is to be noted that the petitioner has taken different stands; one in Habeas Corpus Petition and another one is before this court, knowing the fact that the said Ramya handed over the child to the Chlid helpline or police station, the applicant stated to be biological mother she has not approached the CWC immediately. Even after advertisement issued in the paper, she has not approached them. Therefore, the authorities have followed rules and declared the child free for adoption. Now it is too late for the applicant to contend that the procedure were not followed. It is useful to refer the definition of the “abandoned child” which reads as follows: “"abandoned child" means a child deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, who has been declared as abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry.” 18. Now it is too late for the applicant to contend that the procedure were not followed. It is useful to refer the definition of the “abandoned child” which reads as follows: “"abandoned child" means a child deserted by his biological or adoptive parents or guardians, who has been declared as abandoned by the Committee after due inquiry.” 18. Similarly Clause 14 defines “Child in need of care and protection” which is as follows: “(14) “child in need of care and protection” means a child- (i) who is found without any home or settled place of abode and without any ostensible means of subsistence; or (ii) who is found working in contravention of labour laws for the time being in force or is found begging, or living on the street; or (iii) who resides with a person (whether a guardian of the child or not) and such person (a) has injured, exploited, abused or neglected the child or has violated any other law for the time being in force meant for the protection of child; or (b) has threatened to kill, injure, exploit or abuse the child and there is a reasonable likelihood of the threat being carried out; or (c) has killed, abused, neglected or exploited some other child or children and there is a reasonable likelihood of the child in question being killed, abused, exploited or neglected by that person; or (iv) who is mentally ill or mentally or physically challenged or suffering from terminal or incurable disease, having no one to support or look after or having parents or guardians unfit to take care, if found so by the Board or the Committee; or (v) who has a parent or guardian and such parent or guardian is found to be unfit or incapacitated, by the Committee or the Board, to care for and protect the safety and well-being of the child; or (vi) who does not have parents and no one is willing to take care of, or whose parents have abandoned or surrendered him; or (vii) who is missing or run away child, or whose parents cannot be found after making reasonable inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed; or (viii) who has been or is being or is likely to be abused, tortured or exploited for the purpose of sexual abuse or illegal acts; or (ix) who is found vulnerable and is likely to be inducted into drug abuse or trafficking; or (x) who is being or is likely to be abused for unconscionable gains; or (xi) who is victim of or affected by any armed conflict, civil unrest or natural calamity; or (xii) who is at imminent risk of marriage before attaining the age of marriage and whose parents, family members, guardian and any other persons are likely to be responsible for solemnisation of such marriage” “Foster Care” means placement of a child, by the committee for the purpose of alternate care in the domestic envioronment of a family, other than the child's biological family, that has been selected, qualified, approved and supervised for providing such care.” 19. There is no material to show that immediately after abandoning the child, the said Ramya or the applicant have taken any interest to see the child. Thereafter only for the first time on 4.9.2017 she has moved HCP before this Court. Though it is contended that the authorities have not followed the procedure under Section 38 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and also guidelines, they have not declared the child for adoption within two months. But the facts remains that after perusing the Social Welfare Report and the advertisement calling for the details about the child, as no one has approached, they declared the child free for adoption. It is also relevant to note that Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act also deals with the children who appear to be abandoned shall be placed in a Specialised Adoption Agency. In the given case, on the date of child given to the Child line, CWC handed over the child to the Holy Apostle Convent Baby Home, special agency registered under the Act. Thereafter social worker also filed report and publication also effected. However, neither the applicant nor the Ramya stated to have handed over the child, has approached the CWC. When the biological mother was aware of the fact some other lady handed over the child to the police station within 20 days after the birth, her action in not taking any steps to trace the child also assumes significance. When the child who needed breastfeeding was taken from the mother and given to the Home and the mother has not taken any efforts for months together, that itself indicates the fact that she has abandoned the child. In the above scenario, the authorities following the guidelines and rules of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, and declared the child free for adoption. In the meantime, as per the CARA guidelines, the respondents registered for adoption after thorough enquiry and Home Study Report, finally child was given adoption and the Court has passed order declaring the respondents are the biological parents of the child. Once the adoption was completed as per law, the adopted child permanently is separated from the biological parents and becomes the lawful child of the adoptive parents as per sub-clause 2 of Section 2 of Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 20. Once the adoption was completed as per law, the adopted child permanently is separated from the biological parents and becomes the lawful child of the adoptive parents as per sub-clause 2 of Section 2 of Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 20. As per Rule 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, it is mandatory on the part of the CWC that Committee shall make all efforts to trace the parents or guardians. Rule 28 also mandates that the committee publish the particulars and photograph of an orphan or abandoned child in the national newspapers with wide circulation within seventy two hours from the time of receiving the child four the purpose of tracing out the biological parents or legal guardians. But these procedures have not been followed by the CWC. However, they issued order declaring the child free for adoption under Form-25 by publishing particulars and photograph of the child in Malar Tamil Daily. The Child Welfare Committee has in fact not followed the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 28 of the Rules referred above immediately after the child came into their possession and there is no report available on record to show that they made efforts to trace out the biological parents. The temporary placement order of the child on the date of receiving the child on 26.09.2016 in the Holy Apostles Convent shows the name of one Ramya noted by CWC. Having noted the name, they have not conducted any specific enquiry with regard to the tracing of the biological parents. The conduct of the CWC in this regard is nothing but callousness and lackadaisical attitude. However, the fact remains that after failure to follow rules strictly as contemplated in law, the CWC after obtaining Social Worker's report and finally they declared the child free for adoption under Form 25. Even while passing such order they inadvertently incorporated the clause in the form-25 with regard to the surrender of child. These aspects clearly indicate that CWC has not acted strictly according to the rules at the initial stage. 21. Now, in the above back ground, mere procedural violations or failure to conduct the enquiry would vitiate the adoption proceedings has to be seen. It is not the case of the petitioner that the child was abandoned somewhere else without their knowledge. 21. Now, in the above back ground, mere procedural violations or failure to conduct the enquiry would vitiate the adoption proceedings has to be seen. It is not the case of the petitioner that the child was abandoned somewhere else without their knowledge. The applicant maintained extra marital life with one kannadasan and the child was born through him. The child was entrusted to All Women Police Station, Kanchipuram by the applicant husband's first wife. Applicant aware of the facts however she has not approached the CWC for the best reasons known to them. Probably, the reason for not approaching the CWC after knowing the child being handed over to CWC due to the extra marital life which resulted the child birth, this cannot be ruled out at all. Therefore, when the subsequent proceedings of the CWC clearly indicate that the committee passed an order declaring the child legally free for adoption after 9 months taking into the note of Social Worker Report and considered the respondents as fit persons for adoption and declared them a adoptive parents. The respondents have also legally registered for adoption through CARA and proper enquiry has also conduced by the officers under the Act. The said report also indicate that the respondents have been well placed in life. First respondent salary was Rs.62 lakhs per annum and the second respondent salary was about Rs.10 lakhs at the relevant time. In the above back ground the adoption is finalised. 22. The only mistake committed by the CWC at the initial stage was that they have not conducted separate enquiry to locate the biological parents despite the fact that they have also aware of the name of one Ramya and her phone number. Probably, due to no interest shown by the biological mother and Ramya they have not reduced any report in writing. But such attitude of the CWC is highly condemnable. They ought to have conducted enquiry to locate the biological parents. In this case it is lacking. At any event, as already stated, for giving adoption CWC taken note of the social worker report and also considered the fact that no one has claimed the child, the adoption was ordered. 23. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the applicant that she is unaware where the child is placed. At any event, as already stated, for giving adoption CWC taken note of the social worker report and also considered the fact that no one has claimed the child, the adoption was ordered. 23. It is to be noted that it is not the case of the applicant that she is unaware where the child is placed. She was aware that the child was handed over to the Home. But she has not approached CWC for a long time that lead to pass the order for adoption on 16.06.2017 after 9 months. Only after passing order declaring the child free for adoption she moved HCP 29.06.2017. even in the above HCP she has not made the CWC as a party. Only on 24.11.2017, the amendment was carried out and CWC was made as a party. Before that on 13.09.2017 the petitioner and her so called husband appeared before the Division Bench and took a different stand that they handed over the child to the District Social Welfare Board Office. But the District Social Welfare Officer filed report stating that they have not received any child. Thus, the Division Bench of this Court impleaded the Holy Apostle Convent Babies Home and directed them to be present with records on the hearing of 15.10.2017. In the meanwhile the respondents have filed application for declaring them as adoptive parents of the child and the orders were passed by this Court on 29.11.2017 declaring the respondents as parents of the child. At any event the child was declared free from adoption after 9 months after the child was came into the possession of CWC. The petitioner being aware of the fact that the child was handed over to the CWC, she has not approached the CWC in time. Therefore, mere violation of certain procudure is not a ground to hold that the entire adoption proceeding vitiated. 24. It is also relevant to note Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, deals with that any person aggrieved by an order made by the committee or the Board may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal. But the order of CWC declaring the child free for adoption is not at all challenged by the applicant. Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, deals with that any person aggrieved by an order made by the committee or the Board may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal. But the order of CWC declaring the child free for adoption is not at all challenged by the applicant. Though section 102 gives the power to High Court like a revisional jurisdiction as to the legality or propriety of any such order. This Court has considered the entire factual aspects. Except some procedural violations at initial stage by CWC, the child was declared free for adoption after following proper proceedings, that too after 9 months the child came into the possession of the CWC. The applicant alleged mother aware of the fact of the child handed over to the home has not shown any interest to take back the child. This may be probably due to the reason that the child was born out of extra marital life with one Kannadasan. Taking into consideration of all circumstances I do not find any illegal in passing the order declaring child free from adoption and as well as declaring the adoptive parents as the parents of the child. 25. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed much reliance of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in M. Meena vs. The Superintendent of Police and others in HCP(MD) Nos.1110 and 1122 of 2017 decided on 28.3.2018. In the above case, the mother has surrendered the child thereafter filed HCP during the pendency of the HCP the order declaring the child free from adoption kept in abeyance by the Division Bench of this court. Thereafter, taking into consideration of the circumstances of which she has surrendered the child, handed over the child back to the biological mother. In the above case adoption is not completed. Even the order declaring the child being free from adoption was also kept in abeyance. Therefore, the facts in the above case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Therefore the Division Bench order relied upon by the applicant is not helpful to her case. 26. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a Kerala High Court Judgment in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4423 of 2006(c) [Jose Maveli vs. State of Kerala and another). Therefore, the facts in the above case cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. Therefore the Division Bench order relied upon by the applicant is not helpful to her case. 26. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon a Kerala High Court Judgment in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.4423 of 2006(c) [Jose Maveli vs. State of Kerala and another). In the above case also children were taken from the custody of the father, they are found in the circus troop and the children were handed over to Home, as the children need of care, the High Court of Kerala has held that merely because of the parents of the children are poor, that itself is not a ground to disqualify biological parent to be unfit, so as to treat his child as a 'child in need of care and protection'. Absolutely there is no dispute with regard to the above judgment. The issue in the above case is whether mere poverty of the parents alone sufficient to deprive their right to have the custody of their children. Therefore, the above judgment is also not helpful to the applicant. 27. Further, the learned counsel for the applicant cited a judgment in Sampurna Behura v. Union of India and others [(2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 433]. No doubt, the Honourable Supreme Court in the above case has stressed the need of implementation of Juvenile Justice Act strictly. Absolutely, there is no dispute with regard to the above judgment. 28. The fact remains in this case is that the child in this case was handed over to CWC within one month of her birth i.e. on 26.08.2016. The mother has not even property breastfed the child. The child was placed in the Specialised Adoption Agency on 26.09.2016 i.e, the date of its production before the CWC. Thereafter the respondent took the child for adoption on 29.11.2017. The child is all along living with the respondent and for the past two years the applicant said to be the biological mother never touched the child and the child is now growing with the adoptive parents. When the child was produced by the respondents before this Court could see that the child was so attached with the respondents as if the child was born to them. When the child was produced by the respondents before this Court could see that the child was so attached with the respondents as if the child was born to them. The nature of attachment towards the respondents by the child was seen by this court that itself indicate that child is very comfortable and attached with the respondents. At this stage if the custody is removed it would not be for the best interest of the child. Therefore, taking into consideration of the paramount interest of the child, this Court hold that the application to recall the order passed by this court cannot be considered. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Since the application to recall the order passed by this court is dismissed, the application to grant leave is also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly A.No.1153 of 2018 also dismissed. The points are answered as above. 29. In the result, Application Nos.1152 and 1153 of 2018 in O.P.No.900 of 2017 are dismissed. 30. Before parting with the case, this Court record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.V. Lakshminarayanan, Amicus Curiae.