Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently permitted a woman, who is a mother of four biological children, to adopt a girl child. Court acknowledged that legal restrictions exist against such adoptions, but emphasized that the child recognized the woman as her mother, and there was a reciprocal bond of love. Consequently, it ruled in favor of the child's best interests, allowing the woman to officially adopt her.

The bench of Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Manjive Shukla said, 

"While the law could not prevent the petitioner from giving birth to another child, it has been relied to deprive the petitioner from bringing up another child as her own. To take away X from the petitioner is the easiest part in law but it is not possible for law to find another set of parents X may identify as its own. Therefore, law must yield to justice..."

Additionally, the bench strongly emphasized that exposing the young child to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) proceedings, which revealed her abandonment and foster care situation, was an unfortunate and unnecessary experience that should have been avoided for the child's emotional well-being till she grew up enough to deal with the psychological trauma that may arise.

"Ignorance would have been bliss for X," the bench said. 

The court passed the order in the writ petition moved by the woman assailing an order passed by the CWC Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad. The Committee had rejected the petitioner's application for grant of foster care of X (the minor child).

In 2014, the child, who was only a few days old, had been handed over to the woman by a third-gender person. The woman took care of the child until October 2021 when the same third-gender person abducted her.

Following the woman's complaint to the CWC, the child was rescued and returned to her custody. However, a year later, the child was sent to a government shelter by the CWC. Later, two individuals claimed the child as their own, prompting a DNA test that ultimately disproved their biological parentage. Subsequently, when the woman sought foster care for the child, her application was denied by the committee.

The high court noted the woman's sincere and genuine desire to be with the child. It pointed out that the woman had been visiting the child in the government shelter and had made complaints that she was not being given enough time to spend with the child and also she was not allowed to hold the child in her arms. 

Court explicitly highlighted that the counseling report of the child was self-speaking of the care offered by the petitioner to the child till before her abduction and also as to the purity of the bond that exists between the petitioner and X. 

"Clearly, it reflects that X had grown up in the knowledge that the petitioner was her mother. In absence of any adverse circumstance or report, that fact may have been enough to allow for foster care to have been allowed in favour of the petitioner," it said. 

Court further opined that the order passed by the District Probation Officer, who had held that the woman ineligible in law to take the child in adoption, was mechanical and wholly vague.

"Only generalized observations have been made made to consider the eligibility of the petitioner. We would have been satisfied in the context of the facts, if the District Probation Officer had delved deeper to assess the needs and paramount interests of the child that were required to be fearlessly guarded," the bench said. 

Therefore, court allowed the woman to apply for adoption of the child and asked the CWC to grant custody of the child over to the petitioner.

Court also directed the District Probation Officer to submit periodical reports with respect to development of X initially on a monthly basis for the period of first six months and thereafter as and when required by law.

Case Title: Smt. Meena v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others