Disposed

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal v. Roshan Ronald D Souza and Anr. and Maegan Jovita D Souza (Minor)

Bombay HC9 Mar 2016FAP/11/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court recorded an undertaking from the mother of the proposed adopters to travel to the UAE for the child's care and accepted affidavits detailing the couple's financial stability and education plans. The petition was disposed of based on these satisfactions.

What did the court decide?

Acceptance of undertaking and affidavits; disposal of the Foreign Adoption Petition.

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal Vs Roshan Ronald D Souza and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

903 FAP NO.11-2016.DOC

¶2

jsn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AND

¶4

IN ITS GENERAL AND INHERENT JURISDICTION JUDGE’S ORDER NO.26 OF 2016 IN

¶5

FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO.11 OF 2016

¶6

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal
And

¶7

Mr. Roshan Ronald D'Souza & Anr.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

…Proposed
adopters

¶10

Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, Adv. for the Respondent.
Mr. O. Hareendran, representative of ICSW present.

¶11

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:9th March 2016

¶12

PC:-

¶13

1.By an order dated 10th February 2016 (A.K. Menon, J.) the
Petitioners were required to file a further affidavit disclosing some
additional material. Mr. Kapoor for the proposed adopters tenders
the affidavit of one Siline D’Souza, the mother of the first proposed
adopter, Mr. Roshan D’Souza, and the mother-in-law of the 2nd
proposed adopter. In paragraph 3 of this affidavit she says that while
both proposed adopters will take leave from their respective jobs to

¶14

1 of 2

¶15

903 FAP NO.11-2016.DOC

¶16

provide care to the infant, Mrs. Siline D’Souza herself will travel to
the UAE where the proposed adopters reside and will take care of
the child. She is not so old as to be incapable of this. The statement
is accepted as an undertaking to the Court.

¶17

2.There is also a further affidavit dated 23rd February 2016 of
the two adoptive parents in which they set out details of how the
infant will be enrolled in a play school, be home schooled, and, in
addition, details of the investments and savings of the couple. I find
that in the aggregate the savings shown in paragraph 2 in various
banks and institutions and which stand in either joint names of the
couple or in the names of one or the other are substantial. This
affidavit is accepted as well. In consequence, the Judge’s Order is
separately signed.

¶18

3. The Foreign Adoption Petition is disposed of.

¶19

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶20

2 of 2

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal v. Roshan Ronald D Souza and Anr. and Maegan Jovita D Souza (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal v. Roshan Ronald D Souza and Anr. and Maegan Jovita D Souza (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahabanoo N. Kotwal Vs Fali P. Bomanji and Anr. Mr.Jamshed Cassad (A0PPLICANT)

Gopinath M. Koli Vs Laxaman Mahadu Kakad @ Lakhama

Whirlpool of India Ltd. Vs Videocon Industries Ltd.

Smt. Kamal Siddappa Naduramani @ Smt. Kamal Siddappa Naduvinmani Vs Master Prabhakar Siddappa Naduramani @ Master Prabhakar Siddappa

Valimohamed Haji Allarakha Sonawala Wakf and 2 Ors. Vs Zainal Abidin Afzal Dewji and 5 Ors.

Swti Bal Vikas Vs Matteo Ponte and Dalla Via Federica