Supreme Court of India
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKERversusSTATE AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 84
- Decided
- 8 February 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- P SATHASIVAM
Holding
Applying the Juvenile Justice Act, the 2007 Rules and the 2011 Adoption Guidelines, the Court held that the appellant is eligible and may be appointed guardian and permitted to adopt the child despite her age.
Summary
Stephanie Joan Becker, an American citizen, applied under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to be appointed guardian of a 10‑year‑old Indian orphan named Tina and to take her abroad for adoption. The trial court and the Delhi High Court rejected the applications, holding that Becker, at 53 years of age, exceeded the maximum age limit of 45 years for a single prospective adoptive parent prescribed in the adoption guidelines then in force. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the applicable law as it stood on the date of the appeal, namely the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the 2007 Rules and the Guidelines for Adoption of 2011, which have statutory effect. The Court found that the guidelines permit a relaxation of the age ceiling for older children, and that Becker satisfied all substantive requirements, including a CARA No‑Objection Certificate, a satisfactory home‑study report, financial stability and support from family members. Consequently, the Court held that Becker could be appointed legal guardian and granted permission to take the child to the United States for adoption, and ordered the issuance of the required conformity certificate. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the age limit of 45 years for a single prospective adoptive parent under the adoption guidelines disqualifies the appellant despite the guidelines allowing relaxation for older children.
- Whether the appellant’s applications under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, can be entertained in view of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the 2007 Rules and the 2011 Adoption Guidelines.
- Whether the Supreme Court may grant guardianship and permission for inter‑country adoption based on the law in force at the time of the appeal.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Guardians and Wards ActJuvenile Justice Actinter‑country adoptionage limitCARAadoption guidelineslegal guardianSupreme Court
Judgment
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 951
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER A
v.
STATE AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 08, 2013
B
[P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOi AND
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890:
c
· ss.. 7 and 26 - Applications by appellant, a female
American citizen, for an order appointing her as guardian of
a minor female orphan and for permission to take the child
out of country for purpose of adoption - Held: Claim of
appellant will have to be necessarily considered on the basis 0
of the law as in force on date, namely, the provisions of the
JJ Act and the Rules framed thereunder and Guidelines of
2011 which have been conferred a statutory sanction - Having
regard to totality of facts of the case, proposed adoption would
be beneficial to child apart from being consistent with legal E
entitlement of appellant - Appellant is appointed as legal
guardian of the child and is granted permission to take the
child to USA - CARA will issue the necessary conformity
certificate as contemplated under clause 34(4) of the
Guidelines of 2011 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
of Children) Act, 2000 - s. 41 - Juvenile Justice (Care and F
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, r. 33 - Guidelines for
Adoption from India, 2006 - Guidelines Governing the
Adoption of Children, 2011 - Adoption - Inter country
adoption.
G
The appellant, an American citizen, by an application
u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act),
sought for an order appointing her as guardian of a 10
years old female orphan. By another application u/s 26
951 H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R.
A of the Act, she sought permission of the court to take the
child out of the country for the purpose of adoption. Both
the applications were rejected on the sole ground that the
appellant being a single prospective adoptive parent was
aged about 53 years whereas for such a person the
B maximum permissible age as prescribed by the
Government of India Guidelines in force was 45. The High
Court upheld the orders.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
C HELD: 1.1. Under sub-s. (3) of s. 41 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ
Act) as amended by Act 33 of 2006 and made effective
from 22.8.2006, power has been conferred in the court to
give a child in adoption upon satisfaction that the various
D guidelines issued from time to time, either by the State
Government or the Central Adoption Resource Agency
(CARA) and notified by the Central Government have
been followed in the given case. Further, r. 33(2) of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules
E 2007 makes it clear that "for all matters relating to
adoption, the guidelines issued by CARA and notified by
the Central Government under sub-s. (3) of s.41 of the
Act, shall apply." The Guidelines for Adoption from India,
2006 (Guidelines of 2006) stand repealed by the
F Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children, 2011
(Guidelines of 2011 ). By virtue of the provisions of r. 33(2)
it is the Guidelines of 2011 notified u/s 41 (3) of the JJ Act
which will now govern all matters pertaining to inter-
country adoptions virtually conferring on the said
G Guidelines a statutory flavour and sanction. [para 8-9]
[961-B-E; 962-A, D-E]
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India 1984 (2)
=
SCR 795 (1984) 2 sec 244 - referred to
H 1.2. The claim of the appellant along with
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 953
.
consequential relief, if any, will have to be necessarily A
considered on.the basis of the law as in force on date,
namely, the provisions of the JJ Act and the Rules
framed thereunder and the Guidelines of 2011. The
appellant's case for adoption has been sponsored by an
agency (Journeys of the Heart, USA) rendering service B
in USA which is recognized by CARA. The Home Study
Report of the family of the appellant indicates that the
appellant apart from being financially solvent is a person
of amicable disposition who has developed affinity for
Indian culture and Indian children. The appellant, though c
unmarried, has the support of her brother and other
family members who have promised to look after the child
in the event such a situation becomes necessary for any
reason whatsoever. Each and every norm of the adoption
process spelt out under the Guidelines of 2006, as well 0
as the Guidelines of 2011, has been adhered to. If the
foreign adoptive parent is otherwise suitable and willing,
and consent of the child had also been taken (as in the
instant case) and the expert bodies engaged in the field
are of the view that the adoption process would end in a E
successful blending of the child in the family of the
appellant in USA, the appellant cannot be said to be
disqualified or disentitled to the relief(s) sought by her in
the proceedings in question, and the Court must lean in
favour of the proposed adoption. [para 9-11] [962-G; 963-
C-D; 964-H; 965-A-D] F
1.3. Therefore, the appellant is appointed as the legal
guardian of the minor female child and is granted
permission to take the child to USA. CARA will issue the
necessary conformity certificate as contemplated under G
clause 34(4) of the Guidelines of 2011. [para 11] [965-E-G]
Case Law Reference:
1984 (2) SCR 795 referred to para 5
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20·i3] 1 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1053 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.07 .2012 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 425 of 2010.
B Pinky Anand, Natasha Shehrawat, Prabal Bagchi, Amit
Kumar, Vivek Narayan Sharma for the Appellant.
Ankur Goel, S. Ramamani, Binu Tamta, Priya Hingorani,
Sushma Suri, Anant Asthna, Jyoti Mendiratta for the
c Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANJAN GOGOi, J. 1. Leave granted.
D 2. The rejection of the applications filed by the appellant
under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
(hereinafter for short the "Guardians Act") by the learned Trial
Court vide its order dated 17.09.2010 in Guardianship Case
No. 2 of 2010 and the affirmation of the said order made by
E the High Court of Delhi by its order dated 09.07.2012 in FAO
No. 425 of 2010 has been put to challenge in the present
appeal. By the application filed under Section 7 of the
Guardians Act, the appellant had sought for an order of the
Court appointing her as the guardian of one female orphan child
F Tina aged about 10 years whereas by the second application
filed under Section 26 of the Guardians Act the appellant had
sought permission of the Court to take the child Tina out of the
country for the purpose of adoption.
3. The rejection of the aforesaid two applications by the
G learned Trial Court as well as by the High Court is on a sole
and solitary ground, namely, that the appellant, being a single
prospective adoptive parent, was aged about 53 years at the
relevant point of time whereas for a single adoptive parent the
maximum permissible age as prescribed by the Government
H of India Guidelines in force was 45. Though a no objection,
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 955
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
which contained an implicit relaxation of the rigour of the A
Guidelines with regard to age, has been granted by the Central
Adoption Resource Authority (CARA}, the High Court did not
consider it appropriate to take the said no objection/relaxation
into account inasmuch as the reasons for the relaxation granted
were not evident on the face of the document i.e. no objection B
certificate in question.
4. To understand and appreciate the contentious issues
that have arisen in the present appeal, particularly, the issues
raised by a non-governmental organization that had sought C
impleadment in the present proceedings (subsequently
impleaded as respondent No. 4) it will be necessary to take
note of the principles of law governing inter-country adoption,
a short resume of which is being made hereinbelow. But before
doing that it would be worthwhile to put on record that the
objections raised by the Respondent No.4, pertain to the D
legality of the practice of inter country adoption itself, besides
the bonafides of the appellant in seeking to adopt the child
involved in the present proceeding and the overzealous role of
the different bodies involved in the process in question resulting
in side stepping of the laid down norms. E
5. The law with regard to inter-country adoption, indeed,
was in a state of flux until the principles governing giving of
Indian children in adoption to foreign parents and the procedure
that should be followed in this regard to ensure absence of any F
abuse, maltreatment or trafficking of children came to be laid
down by this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of lndia 1•
The aforesaid proceedings were instituted by this Court on the
basis of a letter addressed by one Lakshmi Kant Pandey, a
practicing advocate of this Court with regard to alleged
malpractices indulged in by social and voluntary organizations G
engaged in the work of offering Indian children in adoption to
foreign parents. After an elaborate consideration of the various
dimensions of the questions that arose/were raised before the
1. (1984) 2 sec 244. H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R.
A Court and the information laid before it by the Indian Council
of Social Welfare, Indian Council of Child Welfare, SOS
Children's Villages of India (respondent No. 2 herein) and also
certain voluntary organizations working in the foreign
jurisdictions, this Court, after holding in favour of inter country
B adoption, offered elaborate suggestions to ensure that the
process of such adoption is governed by strict norms, and a
well laid down procedure to eliminate the possibility of abuse
or misuse in offering Indian children for adoption by foreign
parents is in place. This Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (supra)
c also laid down the approach that is required to be adopted by
the courts while dealing with applications under the Guardians
and Wards Act seeking orders for appointment of foreign
prospective parents as guardians of Indian children for the
eventual purpose of adoption. Such directions, it may be
noticed, was not only confined to hearing various organizations
0
like the Indian Council for Child Welfare and Indian Council of
Social Welfare by issuance of appropriate notices but also the
time period within which the proceedings filed before the Court
are to stand decided. Above all, it will be necessary for us to
notice that in Lakshmi Kant Pandey (supra) this Court had
E observed that :
"Of course, it would be desirable if a Central Adoption
Resource Agency is set up by the Government of India with
regional branches at a few centres which are active in
F inter-country adoptions. Such Central Adoption Resource
Agency can act as a clearing house of information in
regard to children available for inter-country adoption and
all applications by foreigners for taking Indian children in
adoption can then be forwarded by the social or child
welfare agency in the foreign country to such Central
G
Adoption Resource Agency and the latter can in its turn
forward them to one or the other of the recognized social
or child welfare agencies in the country."
6. Pursuant to the decision of this Court in Lakshmi Kant
H Pandey (supra) surely, though very slowly, the principles
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 957
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
governing adoption including the establishment of a central A
body, i.e., Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) took
shape and found eventual manifestation in a set of elaborate
· guidelines laid down by the Government of India commonly
referred to as the Guidelines For Adoption from India 2006
(hereinafter referred to as "the Guidelines of 2006"). A reading B
of the aforesaid Guidelines indicates that elaborate provisions
had been made to regulate the pre-adoption procedure which
culminates in a declaration by the Child Welfare Committee that
the child is free for adoption. Once the child (abandoned or
surrendered) is so available for adoption the Guidelines of 2006 c
envisage distinct and separate steps in the process of adoption
which may be usefully noticed below :
(1) Enlisted Foreign Adoption Agency (EFAA)
The applicants will have to contact or register with o
an Enlisted Foreign Adoption Agency (EFAA)/
Central Authority/Govt. Deptt. in their country, in
which they are resident, which will prepare the a
Home Study Report (HSR) etc. The validity of
"Home Study Report" will be for a period of two E
years. HSR report prepared before two years will
be updated at referral.
The applicants should obtain the permission of the
competent authority for adopting a child from India.
Where such Central Authorities or Government F
departments are not available, then the applications
may be sent by the enlisted agency with requisite
documents including documentary proof that the
applicant is permitted to adopt from India
The adoption application dossier should contain all G
documents prescribed in Annexure-2. All
documents are to be notarized. The signature of the
notary is either to be attested by the Indian
Embassy/High Commission or the appropriate
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R.
A Govt. Department of the receiving country. If the
documents are in any language other than English,
then the originals must be accompanied by attested
translations
A copy of the application of the prospective
B adoptive parents along with the copies of the HSR
and other documents will have to be forwarded to
RIPA by the Enlisted Foreign Adoption Agency
(EFAA) or Central Authority of that country.
c (2) Role of Recognized Indian Placement Agency
(RIPA)
On receipt of the documents, the Indian Agency will
make efforts to match a child who is legally free for
inter-country adoption with the applicant.
D
In case no suitable match is possible within 3
months, the RIPA will inform the EFAA and CARA
with the reasons therefore.
(3) Child being declared free for inter-country
E adoption - Clearance by ACA
Before a RIPA proposes to place a child in the Inter
country adoption, it must apply to the ACA for
assistance for Indian placement.
F The child should be legally free for adoption. ACA
will find a suitable Indian prospective adoptive
parent within 30 days, failing which it will issue
clearance certificate for inter-country adoption.
G ACA will issue clearance for.inter-country adoption
within 10 days in case of older children above 6
years, siblings or twins and Special Needs Children
as per the additional guidelines issued in this
regard.
H
,
••
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 959·
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
In case the ACA cannot find suitable Indian parent/ A
parents within 30 days, it will be incumbent upon the
ACA to issue a Clearance Certificate on the
31st day.
If ACA Clearance is not given on 31st day, the
8
clearance of ACA will be assumed unless ACA has
sought clarification within the stipulation period of
30 days.
NRI parent(s) (at least one parent) HOLDING Indian
Passport will be exempted from ACA Clearance, C
but they have to follow all other procedures as per
the Guidelines.
(4) Matching of the Child Study Report with Home
Study Report of FPAP by RIPA
D
After a successful matching, the RIPA will forward
the complete dossier as per Annexure 3 to CARA
for issuance of "No Objection Certificate".
(5) Issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by
E
CARA
RIPA shall make application for CARA NOC in
case of foreign/PIO parents only after ACA
Clearance Certificate is obtained.
F
CARA will issue the 'NOC' within 15 days from the
date of receipt of the adoption dossier if complete
in all respect.
If any query or clarification is sought by CARA, it
will be replied to by the RIPA within 10 days. G
No Indian Placement Agency can file an application
in the competent court for inter-country adoption
without a "No Objection Certificate" from CARA.
H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 1 S.C.R.
A (6) Filing of Petition in the Court
On receipt of the NOC from CARA, the RIPA shall
file a petition for adoption/guardianship in the
competent court within 15 days.
B The competent court may issue an appropriate
order for the placement of the child with FPAP.
As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court directions, the
concerned Court may dispose the case within 2
months.
c (7) Passport and Visa
RIPA has to apply in the Regional Passport Office
for obtaining an Indian Passport in favour of the
child.
D The concerned Regional Passport Officer may
issue the Passport within 1O days.
Thereafter the VISA entry permit may be issued by
the Consulate/Embassy/High Commission of the
.concerned country for the child.
E
(8) Child travels to adoptive country
The adoptive parent/parents will have to come to
India and accompany the child back to their country.
7. Even after the child leaves the country the Guidelines
F of 2006 contemplate a process of continuous monitoring of the
welfare of the child through the foreign placement agency until
the process of adoption in the country to which the child has
been taken is completed, which process the Guidelines
contemplate completion within two years. The monitoring of the
G welfare of the child after the process of adoption is complete
and the steps that are to be taken in cases where the adoption
does not materialize is also contemplated under the Guidelines
of 2006. As the said aspects are not relevant for the purposes
of the present adjudication the details in this regard are not
H being noticed. What, however, would require emphasis, at this
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 961
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
stage, is that by and large the Guidelines of 2006 framed by A
the Ministry of Women and Child Development are in
implementation of the decision of this Court in the case of
Lakshmi Kant Pandey (supra).
8.Two significant developments in the law governing
8
adoptions may now be taken note of. Section 41 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (her~inafter
for short the "JJ Act") was amended by Act 33 of 2006 by
substituting sub-Sections 2, 3 and 4 by the present provisions
contained in the aforesaid sub-Sections of Section 41. The
aforesaid amendment which was made effective from C
22.8.2006 is significant inasmuch as under sub-Section 3
power has been conferred in the Court to give a child in
adoption upon satisfaction that the various guidelines issued
from time to time, either by the State Government or the CARA
and notified by the Central Government have been followed in D
the given case. The second significant development in this
regard is the enactment of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Rules 2007 by repeal of the 2001 Rules
in force. Rule 33 (2) makes it clear that "for all matters relating
to adoption, the guidelines issued by the Central Adoption E
Resource Agency and notified by the Central Government under
sub-section (3) of Section 41 of the Act, shall apply." Rule 33
(3) in the various sub-clauses (a) to (g) lays down an elaborate
procedure for Gertifying an abandoned child to be free for
adoption. Similarly, sub-rule (4) of Rule 33 deals with the F
procedure to be adopted for declaring a surrendered child to
be legally free for adoption. Once such a declaration is made,
the various steps in the process of adoption spelt out by the
Guidelines of 2006, details of which have been extracted
hereinabove, would apply finally leading to departure of the child G
from the country to his/her new home for completion of the
process of adoption in accordance with the laws of the'9ountry
to which the child had been taken. In this regard the order of
the courts in the country under Section 41 (3) of the JJ Act would
be a step in facilitating the adoption of the child in the foreign H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R.
A country.
9. It will also be necessary at this stage to take note of the
fact that the Guidelines of 2006 stand repealed by a fresh set
of Guidelines published by Notification dated 24.6.2011 of the
Ministry of Women and Child Development. Government of
8
India under Section 41 (3) of the JJ Act. The time gap between
the coming into effect of the provisions of Section 41 (3) of the
JJ Act i.e. 22.08.2006 and the publication of the 2011
Guidelines by the Notification dated 24.6.2011 is on account
of what appears to be various procedural steps that were
C undertaken including consultation with various bodies and the
different State Governments. A reading of the Guidelines of
2011 squarely indicate that the procedural norms spelt out by
the 2006 Guidelines have been more elaborately reiterated and
the requirements of the pre-adoption process under Rules 33(3)
D and (4) have been incorporated in the said Guidelines of 2011.
As a matter of fact, by virtue of the provisions of Rule 33(2) it
is the Guidelines of 2011 notified under Section 41 (3) of the
JJ Act which will now govern all matters pertaining to inter-
country adoptions virtually conferring on the said Guidelines a
E statutory flavour and sanction. Though the above may not have
been the position on the date of the order of the learned trial
court i.e. 17.9.2010, the full vigour of Section 41(3) of the JJ
Act read with Rule 33 (2) of the Rules and the Guidelines of
2011 were in operation on the date of the High Court order i.e.
F 9.7.2012. The Notification dated 24.06.2011 promulgating the
Guidelines of 2011 would apply to all situations except such
things done or actions completed before the date of the
Notification in question, i.e., 24.06.2011. The said significant
fact apparently escaped the notice of the High Court. Hence
G the claim of the appellant along with consequential relief, if any,
will have to be necessarily considered on the basis of the law
as in force today, namely, the provisions of the JJ Act and the
Rules framed thereunder and the Guidelines of 2011 notified
on 24.6.2011. In other words, if the appellant is found to be so
H entitled, apart from declaring her to be natural guardian and
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 963
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
grant of permission to take the child away from India a further A
order permitting the proposed adoption would also be called
for. Whether the order relating to adoption of the child should
be passed by this Court as the same was not dealt with in the
erstwhile jurisdictions (trial court and the High Court) is an
incidental aspect of the matter which would require B
consideration.
10. The facts of the present case, as evident from the
pleadings of the parties and the documents brought on record,
would go to show that the appellant's case for adoption has
been sponsored by an agency (Journeys of the Heart, USA) C
rendering service in USA which is recognized by CARA. The
Home Study Report of the family of the appellant indicates that
the appellant apart from being gainfully employed and financially
solvent is a person of amicable disposition who has developed
affinity for Indian culture and Indian children. The appellant, D
though unmarried, has the support of her brother and other
family members who have promised to look after the child in
the event such a situation becomes necessary for any reason
whatsoever. The Child Study Report alongwith medical
examination Report prepared by the recognized agency in India E
has been read and considered by the appellant and it is only
thereafter that she had indicated her willingness to adopt the
child in question. Before permitting the present process of inter
country adoption to commence, all possibilities of adoption of
the child by an Indian parent were explored which however did F
not prove successful. The matter was considered by the No
Objection Committee of the CARA and as stated in the affidavit
of the said agency filed before this Court, the No Objection
Certificate dated 03.02.2010 has been issued keeping in mind
the various circumstances peculiar to the present case, details G
of which are as hereunder :
. "Child Tina was an older female child (aged 7 years when
the NOC was issued) and thus relaxation was permissible
as p'er the guidelines.
H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R.
A . The Prospective parent was 54 years of age, which is
within the age up to which adoption by foreign prospective
parent is permissible after relaxation i.e. 55 years .
. The Prospective Adoptive Parent is otherwise also
suitable as she is financially stable and there are three
B reference letters supporting adoption of the child by her.
The Home study report of the prospective parent (Ms.
Stephanie Becker) shows the child as kind, welcoming,
caring and responsible individual with physical, mental
emotional and financial capability to parent a female child
c up to age of seven years from India .
. Procedures such as declaration of the child as legally free
for adoption by CWC Child Welfare Committee (CWC);
ensuring efforts for domestic adoption and clearance of
D Adoption Coordinating Agency; and taking consent of older
child had been followed .
. Follow-up of the welfare of the child was to be properly
done through Journeys of the Hearts, USA, the authorized
agency which had also given an undertaking to ensure the
E adoption of child Tina according to the laws in USA within
a period not exceeding two years from the date of arrival
of the child in her new home. The agency has also
committed to send follow-up reports as required .
. The Biological brother of the prospective parent, Mr.
F
Philip Becker Jr. and his wife Ms. Linda Becker have given
an undertaking on behalf of the single female applicant to
act as legal guardian of the child in case of any unforeseen
event to the adoptive parent. This is another important
safeguard.
G
. Article 5 from the Office of Children's Issues, US
Department of State allowing child Tina to enter and reside
permanently in the United States and declaring suitability
of the prospective adoptive parent, was available."
H
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 965
[RANJAN GOGOi, J.]
11. In view of the facts as stated above which would go to A
show that each and every norm of the adoption process spelt
out under the Guidelines of 2006, as well as the Guidelines of
2011, has been adhered to, we find that the apprehension
raised by the intervener, though may have been founded on
good reasons, have proved themselves wholly unsubstantiated B
in the present case. If the foreign adoptive parent is otherwise
suitable and willing, and consent of the child had also been
taken (as in the present case) and the expert bodies engaged
in the field are of the view that in the present case the adoption
process would end in a successful blending of the child in the c
family of the appellant in USA, we do not see as to how the
appellant could be understood to be disqualified or disentitled
to the relief(s) sought by her in the proceedings in question. It
is our considered view that having regard to the totality of the
facts of the case the proposed adoption would be beneficial
0
to the child apart from being consistent with the legal entitlement
of the foreign adoptive parent. If the above is the net result of
the discussions that have preceded, the Court must lean in
favour of the proposed adoption. We, therefore, set aside the
orders dated 17.09.2010 in Guardianship Case No. 2 of 2010 E
passed by the learned Trial Court and the order dated
09.07.2012 in FAO No. 425 of 2010 passed by the High Court
of Delhi and appoint the appellant as the legal guardian of the
minor female child Tina and grant permission to the appellant
to take the child to USA. In view of the provisions of Section
41 (3) of the JJ Act and to avoid any further delay in the matter F
which would be caused if we were to remand the aforesaid
aspect of the case to the learned Trial Court, only on the ground
that the same did not receive consideration of the learned Court,
we deem it appropriate to pass necessary orders giving the
child Tina in adoption to the appellant. The CARA will now issue G
the necessary conformity certificate as contemplated under
clause 34(4) of the Guidelines of 2011. The appeal
consequently shall stand allowed in the above terms.
R.P. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Guardians and Wards Act"Sign in to search