- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2008, passed in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2007. The appellants moved an application in the court below for adoption of a Indian female child Km. Sangeeta aged about seven years. The said application was rejected by the impugned order, hence, this first appeal. Learned counsel for the proforma respondent argues that a child under the rules, cannot live in orphanage for more than seven years. He argues that the future of Km. Sangeeta would be safe and that it is for the welfare of Km. Sangeeta if she is permitted to be adopted by the appellants. He relied upon th judgment given in the case of Child Welfare Committee Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and others decided by Delhi High Court on 3.9.2008. He also drew my attention to sub section (6) of Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice ( Care and protection of Children) Act, 2000 wherein it has been provided that the court may allow a child to be given in adoption to a person irrespective of marital status or to parents to adopt a child of same sex irrespective of the number of living biological sons or daughters. THIS provision has been cited against the findings arrived at by the court below that the appellants already have three living children; one is aged about 18 years, another is aged about 15 years and the third one is of nine years. Learned trial court has expressed that when the appellants already have three children, there is hardly any need for them to adopt a child and that is too of Indian origin. Learned trial court has stated in its judgment that there is a vast difference in the culture and the social circumstances of the two countries, India and United State of America. The appellants are of American origin. Learned counsel for proforma respondent and the learned counsel for the appellants state that since the appellants have no female issue, hence, they are adopting Km. Sangeeta. On being asked, learned counsel for the proforma respondent states that there are several orphanages in United States of America and there are number of orphans in these orphanages but the appellants are interested to adopt a child either from India or from Nepal or from Zimbabwe. The discretion is given to the court to permit or not for adoption of a orphan. THIS discretion has to be exercised on reasons. The courts are entrusted with a pious responsibility to ensure the welfare of the child before the child is given in adoption. If the court is not convinced that the adoption is for the welfare of the child, the court should refuse to grant permission. Learned court below has expressed the apprehension that the possibility of sex abuse or sex exploitation of the female child is not ruled out. It is admitted to the counsel for the proforma respondent that there are number of orphanages in United State of America and there are number of orphans lodged in these orphanages but the appellants, leaving America behind, have come to India to take a female child of Indian origin in adoption. It is further admitted to him that the appellants are interested in adopting a child only from India, Nepal or Zimbabwe. No reason is assigned for not adopting a child of appellants' own nation. There is a well known saying that "Charity begins from the home" but the appellants are starting this charity, not from their own nation, but from India. The question as to why the appellants ( who are of American origin) are interested in adopting a female child only from India, Nepal or Zimbabwe when there are number of orphans in the appellants' own country, has no reply. THIS sympathy of the appellants which is not for American orphans but is only for orphans of India, Nepal and Zimbabwe is very strange sympathy. In the circumstances, stated above, the apprehension expressed by the learned court below that the possibility of the sex exploitation or the sex abuse of the female child cannot be ruled out, is not baseless. The order passed by the court below is in the interest of the welfare of the child. It suffers from no infirmity. The appeal is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed.;