IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.477 OF 2019 Between:
1. Mr. Kevin Cilia S/o Anthony Cilia Aged about 44 years Residing at Rosewood Court Block A, Flat 8 Triq Paderbron San Pawl, II-Bahar Malta 2. Mrs. Charlotte Anne Cilia w/o Kevin Cilia aged about 40 years residing at Rosewood Court Block A, Flat 8 Triq Paderbron San Pawl, II-Bahar Malta 3. Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society Matruchayan Foundling Home Having its registered office at 27th Cross Banashankari 2nd Stage Bangalore 560 070 Represented by its Manager Mrs. Sumangala G Angadi …Petitioners (by Smt. Jayna Kothari, Senior Counsel For Shri Rohan Kothari, Advocate) And:
Nil … Respondent This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed in Misc Petition No.25023 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore rejecting the petition filed under Sections 56, 57, 59 and 61 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015.
This Civil Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03rd September, 2019 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.25023 of 2019 on the file of the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore. The petitioners had filed petition under Section 56, 57, 59 and 61 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child) Act, 2015. The petitioners No.1 and 2, who intend to adopt the child, had executed power of attorney in favour of one Smt. Anju Ajeshkumar for filing the petition and to conduct the case. Before the Trial Court, the Power of Attorney holder deposed on behalf of the petitioners No.1 and 2. The Trial Court on appreciating the materials on record was of the view that the petitioners No.1 and 2, who intend to take a child in adoption, ought to have come before the Court to give their evidence. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
“Since petitioners No.1 and 2 contend that they are not having their own child and they intend to take a child in adoption, then they ought to have come before the court to give their evidence, but appointment of GPA for said reason is not proper to accept. Since petitioners No.1 and 2 have taken laudable decision to have a male child in adoption, they are required to express their abundant care and desire to have the male child ‘VIKAS’ from India. But the representation of petitioners No.1 and 2 through power of attorney holder goes to show their non interest to attend proceedings of the court. The representation of petitioners No.1 and 2 through their GPA holder seeking inter country adoption of male child to is not proper. Hence, it is not proper to handover the child to GPA holder of petitioners No.1 and 2.”
2. A reading of the above portion of the order makes it clear that the trial Court proceeded to order only on the ground that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have not come before the Court for adducing evidence and failed to show their abundant care and desire towards adoption.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo dated 28th November, 2019 stating that petitioners No.1 and 2 would come before the Court to depose evidence. Taking note of the above fact, I am of the view that since the matter involves intra-country adoption of a child, in the best interest of child, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Court. Hence, the order dated 03rd September, 2019 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.25023 of 2019 by the XIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore is set aside and the petition is remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity to the petitioners No.1 and 2 to adduce their evidence.
4. Petitioners to appear before the Trial Court on 11th December, 2019 and seek an appropriate date for submitting evidence. Since the matter involves intra-country adoption of a child aged 1 year five months who is a special needs child, the Trial Court to dispose of the matter after recording evidence, as expeditiously as possible.
Petition is allowed in the above terms.
lnn Sd/- JUDGE