Bombay High Court Rules Against CWC’s Custody Action
In a recent landmark decision, the Bombay High Court declared that a local Child Welfare Committee (CWC) overstepped its jurisdiction by seizing an adopted child from her adoptive parents. This ruling was made by the Nagpur Bench, composed of Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nivedita Mehta, in the case of ABC & Anr v. CWC & Ors.. The Court emphasized that the CWC has no authority over a child who is neither an ‘orphan’ nor ‘abandoned’ nor a ‘child in need of care and protection’ as per Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
CWC’s Jurisdiction Under Scrutiny
The Nagpur Bench’s decision came as it ordered the immediate return of a minor girl to her adoptive parents, condemning the CWC’s actions as illegal. The court stated, “The action on the part of the CWC obtaining the custody of the child is illegal as the CWC is not competent to exercise the jurisdiction over the said child and thereby the action of the CWC is wrong and illegal.”
Case Background
The dispute began when a couple from Maharashtra’s Chandrapur district adopted a six-day-old infant from her biological parents under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HMA). The adoption was formalized through a notarized deed. However, the CWC later declared the adoption illegal after an NGO worker’s inspection and temporarily took custody of the child, despite later deeming the couple as ‘fit persons’.
Legal Proceedings and Court’s Observations
The couple filed a habeas corpus petition after the CWC took custody of the child on June 5, refusing them access while they were engaged in discussions. The High Court acknowledged deficiencies in the adoption process, noting that merely notarizing the adoption deed did not comply with the HMA, and the Central Adoption Resource Authority’s procedures were not followed. Despite these observations, the Court recognized that the biological parents had willingly consented to the adoption.
Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nivedita Mehta concluded that the child could not be considered ‘orphaned’, ‘abandoned’, or ‘in need of care and protection’ under the Juvenile Justice Act’s definitions. Consequently, they quashed the CWC’s orders dated May 27 and June 5, instructing the return of the child to her adoptive parents.
Legal Representation
Advocate Nihalsing B. Rathod represented the adoptive parents, while Additional Public Prosecutor Amit Chutke appeared for the CWC.
