Allowed

Mswc, Asha Sadan v. Juan Garcia Montes and Karishma Chugani Nankani

Bombay HC5 Jul 2018FAP/23/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants an adoption petition filed by MSWC Asha Sadan on behalf of a minor child. The High Court found the adoptive parents suitable based on the Home Study Report and declared the child free for adoption by the CWC, allowing the Foreign Adoption Petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition proposing the adoption of the minor Shreeram is allowed.

Mswc, Asha Sadan Vs Juan Garcia Montes and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

901-FAP23-18+.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO. 23 OF 2018

¶4

WITH

¶5

JUDGE’S ORDER NO. 129 OF 2018

¶6

MSWC, Asha Sadan…Petitioner
Versus
Juan Garcia Montes and Krishma Chugani…Proposed
NankaniAdoptive Parents

¶7

Smt Lalita Jaya, for the Petitioner.
Mr O Hareendran, Scrutiny Officer, ICSW, is present.

¶8

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:5th July 2018

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. Heard.

¶11

2.The Foreign Adoption Petition proposes adoption of a male
minor, Shreeram. He was born on 21st August 2016. The authorities
at the JJ Marg Police Station, Mumbai took charge of him at the JJ
Hospital Byculla on 2nd February 2017. They produced him before
the Child Welfare Committee on that day. Custody was given to the
MSWC Asha Sadan by an order of the CWC passed on that date.
The minor was in hospital from 21st August 2016, i.e. from birth to

¶12

Page 1 of 3
5th July 2018

¶13

901-FAP23-18+.DOC

¶14

2nd February 2017 when he was taken into custody. His biological
mother had tested positive for HIV. She died on 23rd August 2016.

¶15

3.By an order dated 7th August 2017, the CWC issued a
certificate declaring Shreeram free for adoption. A newspaper
publication was also done and police statements were recorded.
There is an undertaking and Affidavit by the authorized
representative of Asha Sadan on record. The CARA has issued its
no objection certificate.

¶16

4.The adoptive parents are from Spain. Both hold OCI cards.
The second Petitioner is of Indian origin. They live in Madrid. They
are 44 and 36 years old respectively. They have been married for 10
years but have no children of their own.

¶17

5.The medical report for Shreeram obtained on 26th April 2016
says that he was premature baby. His development is somewhat
below the norm. He has small motor issues and requires continued
physiotherapy. He is HIV-free. The adoptive parents have
countersigned the report. Their own health reports are positive.

¶18

6.The adoptive father is a co-owner of a company with an
annual remuneration of Euro 75,000 and a monthly salary of Euro
3,500. The mother works as a fashion designer with a monthly net
salary of Euro 1,380. Their financial and tax documents are on
record.

¶19

Page 2 of 3
5th July 2018

¶20

901-FAP23-18+.DOC

¶21

7.As to the Child Care Arrangement Plan, the adoptive mother
says that she will take full day care, availing maternity leave available
under the Spanish Law. Then she will be helped by relatives. There
is also child security letter from the proposed father’s sister and
brother-in-law.

¶22

8.I have seen the Home Study Report. It is entirely positive. It
recommends the adoption. The other documents required are also
in order.

¶23

9.I have also seen the scrutiny report presented by Mr O
Hareendran, Scrutiny Officer of the Indian Council of Social
Welfare which is on record.

¶24

10.Having regard to these circumstances, I will allow the
Petition. The Judge’s Order is signed separately.

¶25

11.The Registry will get the Petition with all its annexures and all
orders, including the signed Judge’s Order, scanned. These digital
copies are to be preserved. A soft copy may be given to the Advocate
for the Petitioner free of cost on a pen drive provided by the
Advocate for the Petitioner for the same. The Registry will ensure
that the scan of the Judge’s Order is a properly calibrated colour
scan.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶27

Page 3 of 3
5th July 2018

Mswc, Asha Sadan v. Juan Garcia Montes and Karishma Chugani Nankani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mswc, Asha Sadan v. Juan Garcia Montes and Karishma Chugani Nankani

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

Smita Ajay Yeole Vs Milind Vishwanath Chalke and 2 Ors.

Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited Vs Yuvraj Shripat Sonawane and Anr.

Magma Fincorp Limited Vs Accura Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and 2 Ors. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Meenu Manu Thakur and Anr. Vs Rukmani Mohandas Jethwani @ Rukmani Mohandas Jethwani @ Rukmani M. Jethwani (Deceased)

Joseph Augustine Mampilly Vs Olekengal Kunjuvareed Anthony Alias Olekengal K. Anthony Alias O. K. Anthony (Deceased)

Children of the World India Trust Vs Andrea Rossi and Alice Cannoni (Prop. Adopters)