Allowed

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Richard Jon Wester, American and Anr. and Shlok (Minor)

Bombay HC19 Oct 2016FAP/65/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judge permitted the adoption of a male child (born 2012) by American nationals (Richard Jon Wester and spouse) under Foreign Adoption Petition No. 65 of 2016. The court satisfied itself regarding the suitability of the adoptive parents and the fitness of the child, correcting an agency name via corrigendum.

What did the court decide?

Petition for adoption allowed; order signed by Judge.

Shraddhanand Mahilashram Vs Richard Jon… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

904-FAP-65-2016.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. 183 OF 2016

¶5

IN

¶6

FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO. 65 OF 2016

¶7

Shraddhanand Mahilashram
And

¶8

Mr. Richard Jon Wester and Another.

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

…Proposed
Adopters

¶11

Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, for the Petitioners.
Mr. O. Hareendran, Scrutiny Officer of ICSW.

¶12

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 19th October 2016

¶13

PC:-

¶14

1.The Petition proposes the adoption of a male child named
Shlok born on 20th October 2012. He was in the custody of
Shraddhaand Mahilashram, Matunga. He was declared legally free
for adoption on 5th March 2013. The necessary no objection
certificates from CARA are on record as is the undertaking and the
Affidavit by the Petitioner.

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

19th October 2016

¶17

904-FAP-65-2016.DOC

¶18

2.The adoptive parents are both American nationals aged about
46 and 42 years respectively. Married for past 17 years, they have a
biological son, today 12 years old, and another adopted son about six
years old. The second son was adopted in Cuttack, India.

¶19

3.The adoptive father was married earlier and divorced. He had
no children by his first marriage. He works as a Captain with the
United States Coast Guard. His mother works as a Director with the
well known company, Sodexo. Their combined income is
substantial. However, the latest tax returns were not initially filed
with the Petition. These are now included in a compilation that is
tendered by Mr. Kapoor, and which also includes Shlok’s latest IQ
report. This compilation is taken on record and marked “X” for
identification. There is Scrutiny Report from Mr. Hareendran,
which is taken on record and marked “X1”.

¶20

4.The home study report, child care plan and other documents
including the approval notice and the guardianship agreement are in
order. The HIV report for the minor is negative. He appears to have
a minor condition of bronchitis, but this has been addressed and in
any case, the adoptive parents are aware of this background.

¶21

5. I am satisfied that the Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶22

6.I must note that although the name of the foreign adoption
sponsoring agency was wrongly shown in the Petition as
“International Family Services (IFS), USA”. It is corrected to
“Children’s House International” on the basis of a corrigendum

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

19th October 2016

¶25

904-FAP-65-2016.DOC

¶26

from CARA dated 2nd September 2016. This is included in separate
a compilation which is taken on record and marked “X2” for
identification.

¶27

7.The Petition is allowed and the Judge’s Order is separately
signed.

¶28

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶29

Page 3 of 3

¶30

19th October 2016

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Richard Jon Wester, American and Anr. and Shlok (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shraddhanand Mahilashram v. Richard Jon Wester, American and Anr. and Shlok (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajanta Pharma Limited Vs Arvind Iyer and Anr.

Bhagat Distilleries Pvt.Ltd Vs Karan Bottling Company Pvt.Ltd.

Bhagat Distilleries Pvt.Ltd Vs Karan Bottling Company Pvt.Ltd.

Mega Bollywood Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Joseph Fernandes and Ginnette Fernandes Vs Jolene Fernandes (Minor)

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Vs Riddhi Soap Factory