- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 8-11-1999 whereby respondent No. 3 rejected the application of the petitioners for grant of interim injunction and the order of the appellate authority dated 13-9-2000 affirming the said order in appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioners filed Suit No. 811 of 1998 for declaration with the allegation that Shailendra Kumar Arora, petitioner No. 1, is adopted by Chandra Prakash Arora, petitioner No. 2, and for permanent in junction restraining respondents No. 4 and 5 (natural father and mother of petitioner No. 1) from removing or getting removed petitioner No. 1 from the custody of petitioner No. 2 by any means what soever. They also filed an application for interim injunction restraining respon dents No. 4 and 5 from removing petitioner No. 1 from the custody of petitioner No. 2. Respondents No. 4 and 5 filed ob jection to the said injunction application. It was stated that petitioner No. 1 is their second son. He was born on 1. 1 th August, 1987. After his birth they consulted their family Pandit Sri Sadhu Ram, an astrologer, who prepared horoscope of the child, petitioner No. 1. He after studying configuration of stars, told that if the child stays with his parents, namely respondent Nos. 4 and 5, then some unnatural calamity may fall upon the family of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and upon the child and he advised to keep the child away for about 11-12 years. They believed in the predic tion and gave the custody of petitioner No. 1 to the real sister of the mother of the child (respondent No. 5) and petitioner No. 2 who is husband of the sister of respondent No. 5. The child after having attained the age of 12 years is entitled to be given in their custody. It was denied that they had given the child in the adoption to petitioner No. 2 and his wife. The trial Court took the view that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as amended by U. P. Act No. 32 of 1976 the Court in Uttar Pradesh shall not accept any evidence in proof of the giving and taking child in adopt ion except a docu ment regarding adoption made and signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption and registered under any law for the time being enforce and as there was no registered adoption deep produced by the petitioners, t he petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to have custody of the child, petitioner No. 1, as his adopted son. The appellate authority has affirmed the said view in its impugned order dated 13-9-2000.
(3.) I have heard Dr. H. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. It is necessary here to point out that this Court tried to settle the matter amicably as it related to a family matter. The Court passed an order on 2-2-2001 directing the parties to appear in the Court on 12- 3-2001. On 12-3-2001 respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were not present. The petitioners and the wife of petitioner No. 2 were present. It was adjourned for 19th April, 2001 so that respondent Nos. 4and 5 may also remain present. On 19th April, 2001, the petitioners and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were present but they did not arrive at any settlement. I thought that the wishes of petitioner No. 1 may be recorded before any final order in regard to the custody is passed. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 stated that petitioner No. 1 had been living with petitioner No. 2 for about last 14yearsand, therefore, petitions No. 1 be permitted to live with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for a day. I permitted that petitioner No. 1 shall remain exclusively with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the next day between 10. 00 a. m. to 1. 30 p. m. without any hindrance by petitioner No. 2 or his wife and in pur suance of the order he remained with them. On 20-4-2001 the statement of petitioner No. I was recorded and he made statement that he is living with petitioner No. 2 for the last 14 years. He indicated that petitioner No. 2 is his father and he wants to live with him. After this statement was recorded I heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties.;