Allowed

Vatsalya Trust v. Raghuram Thirunalairajan and Deepa Kadambi and Arya (Minor)

Bombay HC24 Aug 2016FAP/54/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble G.S. Patel, J. allowed a Foreign Adoption Petition filed by Vatsalya Trust and proposed adopters for a female minor. The court found all statutory requirements under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000, CARA clearance, medical reports, and home study conditions satisfied.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowing the adoption of the minor girl Gargi by the proposed adopters allowed.

Vatsalya Trust Vs Raghuram Thirunalairajan and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

901 FAP NO.54-2016.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.157 OF 2016 IN

¶6

FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO.54 OF 2016

¶7

Vatsalya Trust
And

¶8

Mr. Raghuraman Thirunalairajan and another

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

…Proposed
adopters

¶11

Ms. Sangeeta A. Nagpal, for the Petitioner.
Mr. O. Hareendran, representative of ICSW present.

¶12

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:24th August 2016

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1.The Petition proposes the adoption of a female minor Gargi.
She was born on 7th March 2015. Her birth mother relinquished
her to the Child Welfare Committee, Mumbai Suburban District,
Mumbai a few days later on 13th March 2015. Her custody was then
given to the Vatsalya Trust under the Juvenile Justice Act 2000.
The Child Welfare Committee, MSD then declared the minor
legally free for adoption on 29th May 2015. This was on the basis of

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

24 August 2016

¶17

901 FAP NO.54-2016.DOC

¶18

intake case sheet of the biological mother, a document of surrender,
a surrender deed, a declaration and other documents. The
Petitioning institution’s undertaking / Affidavit is on record.

¶19

2.The adoption Petition is filed under Section 41 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 as
amended. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA),
New Delhi has issued its no objection certificate.

¶20

3.The adoptive parents are of Indian origin. The adoptive
father is an American citizen of Indian origin (an Overseas Citizen
of India) and the adoptive mother is an Indian national. They live in
California, USA. They have been married for 11 years. They have
no children of their own. The health reports are in order.

¶21

4.The father works as Principal Engineer-SW with Juniper
Networks, California, USA. His annual base pay is US$ 200,000.
The wife is also technically very well-qualified. She is a Senior
Systems Analyst with Elasticsearch Inc. California with an annual
salary US$ 100,000. Their financial documents are on record.

¶22

5.I have considered the Child Care plan. The mother says that
she will take leave for 6 to 12 weeks, after which the father will take
a leave of similar period. The home study reports of 2012, 2014 and
2015 are on record. The report of adoptive parents shows them as
being successful, caring and committed. Theirs marriage is stable.
Their income is more than sufficient, and their home, family and
community are excellent environments for bringing up a child. The
other necessary documents are available.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

24 August 2016

¶25

901 FAP NO.54-2016.DOC

¶26

6.The latest HIV report of the minor of 1st August 2015 is
tendered in a compilation that also contains copy of the permission
from the receiving country. The compilation is taken on record and
marked “X1” for identification. Ms. Nagpal for the Petitioners
points out that the HIV report of the minor is negative.

¶27

7.The medical examination of the minor shows no
abnormalities.

¶28

8.There is a Scrutiny Report of Mr. Hareendran of ICSW is
considered and taken on record and marked “X2” for
identification.

¶29

9.In view of this, the Petition is allowed and the Judge’s Order
is separately signed.

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

24 August 2016

Vatsalya Trust v. Raghuram Thirunalairajan and Deepa Kadambi and Arya (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vatsalya Trust v. Raghuram Thirunalairajan and Deepa Kadambi and Arya (Minor)

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

Rehab Pictures Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and 38 Ors.

Jharna Hitesh Shah Vs Rinky Bhajanlal Lulla

Jumpball Ventures LLP Vs Jay Robotix Pvt.Ltd and Anr.

P.S.Kapadia Vs R.S.Kapadia

The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Vivek Polymers and Anr.

Vatsalya Trust Vs Yashodhara Patnaik Manduvakurti and Anr. (Pro. Adopters) and Riya @ Megha (Minor)