MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Child’s Welfare Paramount,” Bombay High Court Annuls Adoption Order After Failed Parent-Child Bonding

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court, under Justice R.I. Chagla, annulled an adoption order, underscoring the overriding importance of a child’s welfare in adoption cases. The case involved the Bal Asha Trust of Mumbai petitioning against the adoption by Ashu Singhal and Riddhi Singhal, due to significant bonding and care issues with the adopted child.

This judgment pivoted on the legal principle that the best interest and welfare of the child are of utmost importance in adoption cases. It addressed the rare scenario of annulling an adoption due to the failure of establishing a parental bond.

After adopting a male minor child on August 17, 2023, the Singhal couple faced challenges in bonding with the child and managing his behavioral and health issues. This led to their request for annulling the adoption, a situation the court had to carefully assess in light of the child’s welfare.

Justice Chagla pointedly observed, “The welfare of the child is of paramount importance.” The Court meticulously reviewed counseling reports, the petitioner’s affidavit, and the scrutiny officer’s findings. It noted the inability of the adoptive parents to emotionally connect with the child and manage his health concerns, despite efforts and guidance from the adoption agency.

The judgment was grounded in the principles of the Adoption Regulations. It emphasized the child’s welfare as the central concern, aligning with the guidelines of CARA in adoption matters.

The Court decided to annul the previous adoption order, directing CARA to list the child as ‘Free for Adoption’ again. It also ordered the return of a financial investment made by the adoptive parents for the child’s benefit, as per the earlier court directive.

Date of Decision: January 25, 2024

Bal Asha Trust, Mumbai Vs. Ashu Singhal & Anr.

 

Similar News