Allowed

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Charles William Burt, American and Anr.(Pro.Adopters)

Bombay HC18 Aug 2016FAP/51/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed a foreign adoption petition by an American couple to adopt a minor Hindu girl relinquished by her biological mother, finding the adoption viable based on financial security, medical reports, and the child's release order.

What did the court decide?

The adoption petition filed by Shraddhanand Mahilashram on behalf of an American couple is allowed.

Shraddhanand Mahilashram Vs Charles William… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

902-FAP NO.51-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

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

¶4

AND

¶5

IN ITS GENERAL AND INHERENT JURISDICTION JUDGE’S ORDER NO.147 OF 2016 IN

¶6

FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO.51 OF 2016

¶7

Shraddhanand Mahilashram
And

¶8

Mr. Charles William Burt and Another.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

…Proposed
adopters

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:18th August 2016

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1.This Petition proposes the adoption by a American couple
living in Utah, USA of a female minor Mahima. The adoptive
mother was born in Calcutta, India. She was herself adopted by
American single mother in 1988. In my view, this is a compelling
factor in favour of the present adoption Petition.

¶15

Page 1 of 4
18 August 2016

¶16

902-FAP NO.51-2016.DOC

¶17

2.The minor in question was born on 8th September 2013. Her
biological mother admitted her to Shraddhanand Mahilashram in
Mumbai on 11th September 2013. The birth mother was produced
before the Child Welfare Committee, Mumbai, where she formally
relinquished the child. Custody was continued at Shraddhanand
Mahilashram, Matunga under an order dated 11th October 2013.

¶18

3.The Child Welfare committee, Mumbai has issued an order
dated 31st January 2014, noting compliance with the necessary
requirements. The social workers final report of 21st January 2014
is also on file. None have come forward to claim the child, and she
was, therefore, declared legally free for adoption under Section
41( 5) (b) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act 2006 (as amended). She was then committed to Shraddhanand
Mahilashram on that day under Section 39(ii) (f) of Juvenile Justice
Act 2000 for further rehabilitation.

¶19

4.This Petition is filed under Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice
Act and the corresponding Rules.

¶20

5.The Affidavits and undertaking of the Petitioner institution
is on file. The Central Adoption Resource Authority, (CARA) New
Delhi has issued its no objection certificate. This is also on record.

¶21

6.The health reports of both adopters are on file. Father has no
history of Tuberculosis, HIV or Hepatitis. The mother's report says
that she has Asthama, hypertension and Lupus. The Lupus
condition was managed with medication. The asthma is mild and
intermittent. There is evidence of some kidney disease but this has

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

18 August 2016

¶24

902-FAP NO.51-2016.DOC

¶25

also been stabilised and the mother is said to be in sound, physical
and emotional health.

¶26

7.The adoptive father works as a service advisor with Murdock
Chevrolet, Incorporated. His annual salary is in the region of US$
70,000/- per annum. The adoptive mother is a registered nurse
with an International Primary Children Hospital with hourly wages
of US$ 27.79. Their financial documents and tax documents are on
file.

¶27

8.I have seen the child care plan. It says that adoptive mother
will take three months off work to stay home to take care of the
minor. Thereafter, the minor will be looked after by the adoptive
mother's own adoptive mother whenever the two parents are at
work. In this connection the home study report is also extremely
positive. It notes the couple has been matured and stable and more
than capable of providing for the minor's emotional, social,
educational and physical well being. There is also an approval
notice from the US authorities and immigration services.

¶28

9.The minor is HIV negative. However, there is a past report
of mild hearing impairment condition. She was also said to have had
an early incident of asthma that was managed and handled by
nebulisation with asthalin and iprarent. The asthma condition has
stabilised since 1st October 2015 and the minor has displayed no
signs of wheezing since then. A physical milestones have slightly
delayed as is her speech. All of this is known to the adoptive
parents.

¶29

Page 3 of 4
18 August 2016

¶30

902-FAP NO.51-2016.DOC

¶31

10.At my instance, an updated BERA report has been called for
in respect of the minor Mahima. Mr. Kapoor tenders this
compilation, which is taken on record and marked “X1”. This
report from the Hinduja Hospital as of 12th August 2016, i.e. very
recently, signed by Dr. Neelu Desai, a consultant Paediatric
Neurologist and Dr. V.P. Udani another consultant Paediatric
Neurologist saying that hearing threshold are normal and the brain
steam conduction is also normal.

¶32

11.In addition I have before me a Scrutiny Report signed by Mr.
Hareendran. I take this on record and marked “X2” for
identification.

¶33

12.In this view of the matter, the Petition is allowed. The
Judge's order is separately signed.

¶34

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶35

Page 4 of 4

¶36

18 August 2016

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Charles William Burt, American and Anr.(Pro.Adopters)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Charles William Burt, American and Anr.(Pro.Adopters)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigham Ltd. and 49 Ors.

Omprakash Ramkishan Agarwal Vs Laxmidevi Ramkishan Agarwal and Anr. and Surajratan Ramkisan Agarwal and 4 Respondents

Smt. Bhadravati Ramniklal Mehta and Anr. Vs Prakruti Jayesh Rawal and 3 Ors.

Jayant v.Khandekar Vs Sou.Dipali D.Purohit

Mohamed Obedulla Chinoy and Ors. Vs Suleman Hajee Mohamed Chinoy Alias Suleman Hajee Mohamed Alias Suleman Chinoy

Tukaram Raghunath Kerkar Vs Praful Khanderao Deshmukh and Anr. and Asmi Developers (Developers)