ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J 1. The instant petition is against the order dated 22.06.2021 passed by the Family Court, Mahasamund whereby the application filed by the appellant under Regulation 13(7) of the Adoption Regulations, 2017 seeking annulment of adoption, was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the child namely Ganeshu was given on adoption u/s 56(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (henceforth called as “the Act of 2015”) to Mangli Bai Miri and her husband Hemlal Miri on 30.09.2019. After such adoption, the child was given to the custody of appellant and her husband with an effect that they were biological parents and the child became the child of adoptive parents. Thereafter, on 09.11.2020 the father Hemlal Miri died. Subsequently, an application was filed by the appellant mother that the child is unable to mixup and adjust in the atmosphere of adoptive family, thereby, he is not interested to stay in adoptive family. A counseling took place on 23.02.2021. After such counseling the application for annulment of adoption was filed by the appellant who is adoptive mother on the ground that the adopted child could not adjust himself in the adoptive family after death of Hemlal Miri. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after the child was declared as adopted child on 31.10.2019 and he was being brought up in the adoptive family of the appellant but subsequently with passage of time he could not adjust which would be evident from the report of counseling dated 23.02.2021, therefore, the dissolution of the adoption be directed. He would submit that the statement recorded during counseling which is filed in this case would reveal that the adopted boy himself has made statement that he does not want to stay in the family of the appellant. Therefore, learned family Court failed to take into account the said fact and a wrong order was passed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents. 6. Therefore, learned family Court failed to take into account the said fact and a wrong order was passed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the arguments. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents. 6. Section 63 of the Act, 2015 lays down the effect of adoption, which purports that a child in respect of whom an adoption order is issued by the court, shall become the child of the adoptive parents, and the adoptive parents shall become the parents of the child as if the child had been born to the adoptive parents, for all purposes, including intestacy, with effect from the date on which the adoption order takes effect. It further purports that on and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall stand severed and replaced by those created by the adoption order in the adoptive family. 7. In the instant case, the adoption order was passed in favour of the adoptive parents on 31.10.2019 and the application for dissolution as per the Adoption Regulation 2017 was filed by the adoptive mother Mangli Bai after death of Hemlal Miri, the father on 09.11.2020. The Adoption Regulation 2017 has been framed in exercise of the power conferred by clause (c) of Section 68 read with clause (3) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Regulation 3 prescribes the fundamental principles governing adoption which purports that the best interests and well-being of the children shall be of paramount consideration and certain guidelines has been provided. Clause (7) of Regulation 13 lays down that in case of dissolution, the application for annulment of adoption order shall be filed in the Court, which issued the adoption order. The “dissolution” has been defined in Regulation 2(8) which means the annulment of the adoption legally, due to non-adjustment of the child with the adoptive family, after the court decree for the adoption has been obtained. For the sake of convenience, regulation 2(8) which defines dissolution as also Regulation 13(7) which prescribes the procedure for dissolution are reproduced hereinbelow: “2. The “dissolution” has been defined in Regulation 2(8) which means the annulment of the adoption legally, due to non-adjustment of the child with the adoptive family, after the court decree for the adoption has been obtained. For the sake of convenience, regulation 2(8) which defines dissolution as also Regulation 13(7) which prescribes the procedure for dissolution are reproduced hereinbelow: “2. Definitions.--In these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (8) “dissolution” means the annulment of the adoption legally, due to non-adjustment of the child with the adoptive family, after the court decree for the adoption has been obtained.” “13. Follow-up of progress of adopted child.- xxx xxx xxx (7) In case of dissolution, the application for annulment of adoption order shall be filed in the court which issued the adoption order.” 8. The reference has been made before this Court to the statements made by the child during counseling to show that the child does not want to stay with his adoptive mother after death of his father 3 months back. The earlier statement was said to have been recorded on 23.02.2021. The subsequent statement of the child was recorded before the Family Court on 11.06.2021. Reading of the statement would show that after death of his father, Hemlal Miri, the nephew of his mother used to assault him so as to remove him from the place whereas the mother used to behave properly. The boy has further stated that he wants to stay with the mother but since the other child used to abuse and assault, therefore, earlier he expressed his desire that he does not want to stay along with his mother. As against his statement, the mother has stated that the child is not able to adjust himself in the new family atmosphere, therefore, the adoption be annulled. In the teeth of statement of the child which was subsequently recorded wherein he himself expressed his desire that he wants to stay with his mother, this Court cannot substitute its opinion to annul the adoption. 9. Once the adoption is made, section 63 of the Act, 2015 gives a protective umbrella to the child who becomes the child of adoptive parents. The dissolution can only be sought when the child himself is unable to adjust with the adoptive family, therefore, the Adoption Regulation 2017 does not extend any other ground to the parent to seek annulment of adoption. The dissolution can only be sought when the child himself is unable to adjust with the adoptive family, therefore, the Adoption Regulation 2017 does not extend any other ground to the parent to seek annulment of adoption. Once the adoption is made, the only ground which is available for dissolution is because of non-adjustment of the child with the adoptive family. Here in the instant case the boy has categorically expressed his desire to stay with the mother. Therefore, the parents who became adoptive parents after adoption would have a much less ground to seek dissolution of adoption. It would be a travesty of justice if the dissolution of adoption is processed at the behest of the parents on their discretion and free will especially when the welfare and best interests of the children is paramount consideration in matters of adoption inasmuch as after the adoption, it gives certain rights and privileges to the adopted children. Therefore, the object and statutory effect cannot be made porus at the behest of the adoptive parents. Hence, it is not the parents who will decide the fate of adopted children at their discretion and in a given case after adoption, the child cannot be disowned like a transaction of commodity. Consequently, we are unable to accept the submission made by the appellant. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost. The respondent is further directed to take care of the boy as per the mandate of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2017.