Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The basic issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant No.1 should be permitted to make arrangement for adoption of a child named Sahiti presently about five years by appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Appellant No.1 claims to be an organization interested in the welfare of abandoned children and to secure a congenial atmosphere for their upbringing. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 23-12-2002 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal purported to have been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short the Act) and Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (in short the Guardians Act). The appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court was filed by the appellants questioning correctness of the order dated 8-7-2002 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Secun-derabad, rejecting the prayer made by the appellants under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardians Act. Stand of the appellants before the Family Court was that it is a society registered under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (in short Societies Act) purportedly for carrying social service activities. One of its main objectives is to provide shelter to abandoned children more particularly by unwed mothers, and as noted above to see them comfortably settled in adopted homes. The appellants 2 and 3 are residents of U.S.A. According to petition they were married on 19-10-1999. They had earlier adopted one son, but wanted to adopt a female child from India and for that purpose wanted to adopt the girl named Sahiti, born on 14-6-2000. The claim that they are well settled in life with decent income, would be eligible for adopting the child and also were sure to provide a happy home to the adopted child. The minor child Sahiti was stated to be daughter of an unmarried mother by name Esther, a native of Hyderabad and earning livelihood as a labourer. Due to social stigma she relinquished the child in favour of the appellant No. 1 on 14-6-2000 and executed a Relinquishment Deed. The child suffered from various ailments and her adoption in India did not materialize. On that ground the Voluntary Coordination Agency (in short VCA) gave clearance for the minor to be given in adoption abroad. It was stated in the petition that inquiries made by appellant No. 1 revealed that none of her relatives were ready and willing to take care of the minor. Since 14-6-2000 the child has been under the care and custody of appellant No. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department resisted the claim. Their stand was that it had come to the notice of the Government that some unscrupulous organizations in Andhra Pradesh were indulging in child trafficking. With a view to curb menaces, the Government had issued G.O.Ms. No. 16 of 2001 banning relinquishment of a child. Since the claim of the appellant was based primarily on a Relinquishment Deed purported to have been executed by the mother of the child, inquiry was directed to be conducted by the Crime Branch of CID along with other cases. After inquiry, Crime Branch (CID) reported that the Relinquishment Deed was a fake and fabricated document and the witnesses to the Relinquishment Deed were employees of appellant No. 1. Therefore, paper notification dated 4-6-2001 was made calling for claims by biological parents within 30 days in respect of child Sahiti and eight other cases. The Government of India had also addressed to the Central Adoption Resource Agency (in short CARA) about the false claim made by appellant No. 1 and requested to initiate action against appellant No. 1. The Family Court rejected the application holding that the VCA issued no objection certificate on the ground that Indian parents had refused to adopt the child on the ground that she was suffered from skin disease. The Family Court was of the view that the so called reasons did not merit acceptance. The child was also referred to child study report which indicated that the child did not suffer from any ailment. It was noted that letters of rejection by Indian parents were not filed and the efforts of VCA for in country adoption were not established. It was noted that the effort was to be made in the light of decision of this Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244. It was noted that in term of G.O.Ms. No. 16 of 2001 relinquishment of a child by biological parents on grounds of poverty, number of children or unwanted girl child could not be permitted. Accordingly the petition filed was rejected.
(3.) The view of the Family Court was affirmed by the High Court. High Court noticed that appellant No. 1 based its claim on fabricated document and there was no genuine effort to see that the child was adopted by Indian parents.;