- (1.) The learned counsel Mr. Sunil Joshi states that he has instructions to appear for the respondent No.6. Hence the service to the respondent No.6 is treated as complete.
(2.) The learned counsel Mr. Hemant Nahta for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 states that he has filed reply on behalf of the said respondents today, which is part of record. The learned counsels Mr. Amit Pareek and Mr S.L. Sharma for the petitioners seek time to file rejoinder to the said reply. At this juncture, the learned counsels appearing for the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have objected to passing of any interim order in the petition raising preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition and the jurisdiction of the court.
(3.) It is submitted by the leaned counsels for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 that the petition in the present form is not maintainable inasmuch as there is no violation of petitioners' fundamental rights at the instance of the concerned respondents, and even otherwise considering the nature of allegations in the petition, the appropriate remedy would have been to approach the police authorities or to approach the concerned subordinate courts as the case may be. Raising the objection as regards the jurisdiction of the court, they submitted that the court has power to issue writs only within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court and no writ would lie against the respondent No.6 who is based at Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh. The learned counsel Mr. Nahta further submitted that petition as such has become infructuous in view of the subsequent event of the execution of the adoption deed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of respondent No.6. Pressing into service, the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and also the doctrine of deliberate omission, he submitted that the legislature has deliberately not fixed the minimum age of the person who could be taken in adoption and there being a validly executed registered adoption deed by the respondnet Nos. 4 and 5 in favour of respondent No.6, no inuunction could be granted against them more particularly in view of the provisions contained in Section 31 read with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. According to him, the prayer sought in the present petition being in conflict with the statutory provisions of the said Act, the same may not be granted. Lastly he submitted that since the issue of production of the corpus of the child was involved in the petition, the petitioners were required to ask for issuance of Habeas Corpus, and such writ petition could lie only before the Division Bench as per hte Rules of the High Court. He further submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being the parents of the child know where the best interest of their child would lie and after considering the interest of child only they had taken the decision to give their child in adoption to the respondent No.6.;