P.P. Bhatt, J. - (1.) THE present Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.9.2014, passed by the learned First District and Sessions Judge, Khunti, in Adoption Case No. 3 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the adoption case has been rejected. Brief facts, giving rise to present Appeal, are as under: That the petitioner/appellant is a voluntary Child Welfare Organization under Society Registration Act. The child namely Ashis alias Aditya Nath Bose is a destitute boy who has been surrendered by his biological parents and has been declared free for adoption under Sec. 41(4) & 41(5) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 by the Child Welfare Committee on 20.06.2013. The Petitioner/appellant is the adoption -in -charge of a recognized placement agency, to rehabilitate such child in inter country adoption. The Petitioner/Appellant in an adoption Case being No. 03 of 2014 u/Sec. 41(3) & 41(6) of the said Act. (Juvenile Justice Act, 2000) applied for seeking permission to give the said minor child, Ashis alias Aditya Nath Bose in adoption. Complying the adoption guidelines a detailed report of the child has been filed before the Ld. Court below and the prospective adoptive parents fulfill all the eligibility criteria for the adoption. The child was adopted by the parents on 20.10.2013 and thereafter Petitioner/Appellant moved before the State Recommendation Committee who recommended for Adoption of the aforesaid child on 30.04.2014 and subsequent thereto an application was moved before the learned Court below after obtaining the No Objection Certificate on 2/5/2014 which was registered as Adoption Case No. 3 of 2014. The Ld. Court below has rejected the prayer of the Petitioner vide order dated 27/09/2014. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 27/09/2014 the present appeal has been preferred.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the ld. Court below has failed to consider the fact that the Appellant as Petitioner fulfilled all the required formalities and has duly complied with all the terms and conditions prescribed under Adoption Guidelines 2011. The documents relating to Domestic Adoption of the child were also placed on records which are part of the record. It is further submitted that the Ld. Court below has failed to consider the scope of Section 41(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, whereby and whereunder the Court below has to be satisfied with the investigations carried out in terms of the guidelines before giving the child in adoption. It is also submitted that the Ld. Court below in a mechanical manner rejected the adoption case on the ground that medical examination report is not available, whereas complete investigation report about medical examination of the parents and the child was submitted and there is mention about the same in the Dossier, which was sent to CARA containing the Home study report of authorized Foreign Agency. It is further pointed out that the Ld. Court below came to erroneous finding by observing that on the medical examination report of the child was signed by the doctor of West Singhbhum whereas the child is the resident of Khunti, such finding is not at all tenable as a doctor can practice anywhere and in this case the doctor is a visiting doctor of Sahyog Village. Apart from the above, it is submitted that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 has been made for the welfare and betterment and/or rehabilitation of child. Having regard to the above submissions and on perusal of the records and proceedings, it appears that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration the documents relating to intercountry adoption placed on record which clearly indicates that required formalities under the law as well as guidelines have been fulfilled. However, the learned Court below without proper appreciation of the relevant provisions, guidelines, rules which are prevailing for intercountry adoption, rejected the same. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to and relied upon Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as the Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children framed in the year 2011. The said Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children have come into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette with effect from 27.06.2011. By referring Section 41(3) of the Act, whereby the court has to be satisfied with the investigations which has been carried out in terms of the guidelines before giving the child in adoption. It also appears that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration that the investigation has been carried out in terms of the guidelines. It appears that the learned court below has adopted the hypertechnical approach and rejected the adoption case on the ground of medical examination is not done by the Medical Officer of Khunti District or the Medical Practitioners of Khunti District as it was carried out by the Medical Officer of West Singhbhum. It appears that no such requirement is prescribed under any of the guidelines formulated under Section 41(3) of the Act. It also appears that the learned court below has rejected the adoption case also on the ground that no efforts have been made for domestic adoption which is mandatory before reaching to the stage of intercountry adoption. In this context, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, by referring the records and proceedings, pointed out that such attempt was made thrice, but, it was not a successful attempt, and therefore, the requirement provided under the guidelines have been fulfilled. However, the learned court below has not properly appreciated this aspect.
(3.) IT further appears that the learned court below has rejected the adoption case on the ground of medical examination of the parents. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant, by referring the records and proceedings, pointed out that the Home Study Report was produced on record before the learned court below and the said Home Study Report contains the medical examination report of the parents. This report specifically provides that the health of the couple is up to the mark and they are capable of taking the child in adoption and to look after the child with all due care. The learned counsel for the appellant, by referring the Home Study Report, which is produced on record, also pointed out that all other required criteria for taking a child in inter -country adoption, are very well taken care of in the said report and all the requisite criteria have been fulfilled and satisfied for taking the child in inter -country adoption, such as, their family background, financial capability, social status, etc. It further appears that the learned court below has also rejected the adoption case on the ground that the requisite procedure as has been provided under Rules 10, 11, 12 and 13, have not been followed. But, on perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it transits that except Rules 14 and 15, no other Rules are applicable in the instant case as the child is a surrendered child. Rules 12 to 13 deals with the orphans and abandoned child. It appears that the learned court below has miserably failed to appreciate this aspect and thereby rejected the adoption case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the paramount consideration for intercountry adoption or domestic adoption, is the welfare of the child, and on perusal of the materials placed on record, it becomes amply clear that the requirements under the law, rules and guidelines have been strictly adhered to, and the conditions, which are to be fulfilled by the parents as well as different agencies working for adoption, have been fulfilled, and therefore, the judgment and order dated 27.9.2014, passed by the learned Court below (First District and Sessions Judge, Khunti) in Adoption Case No. 3 of 2014, is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the Appellant, is, hereby, permitted to give the child in adoption to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.;