IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3548 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- GOP.1491/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. P.J.LAWRENCE, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.P.K.JOSEPH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O., CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VALSALA LAWRENCE, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.P.J.LAWRENCE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O., CHALAKKUDY VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- DILASHA SHISHU BHAVAN, BHUBAKHOL, PURI GARHWAL DIST., UTHARANJAL STATE-262 401. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPFC 3548/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ADOPTION DEED DT. 21.6.08 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS LIST DT. 31.10.09 SUBMITTED BY THE EPTITIONERS TO THE FAMILY COURT IN OP 1491/09 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.4.2011 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN OP 1491/09 /TRUE COPY/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- OP(FC).No.3548 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. On the premise that they are an issueless couple, the petitioners appear to have approached the respondent, an organisation in Utharanjal, and obtained companionship of a child which is stated to be with the petitioners from 2008. Ext.P1 is held out as a document under which the respondent gave the child to the petitioners. Though the word 'adoption' is used in Ext.P1, as rightly noticed by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Ext.P1 carries no sanctity in the sense that there cannot be any adoption by the process seen in Ext.P1. There is no judicial order by the Court of Wards of the appropriate jurisdiction. The impugned order proceeds on the premise that the respondent being the legal custodian of the child in question, OP(FC).3548/11 2 the jurisdictional court is not the Family Court, Thrissur. This view in the impugned order cannot be found fault with. However, we are clear in our mind that as the writ court, we are duty bound to protect the rights of the child who is with the petitioners. While upholding the impugned order, we, therefore, direct the petitioners to produce the child before the competent court exercising authority under the Guardians and Wards Act in relation to the territory within which the respondent operates and seek appropriate directions or orders, including interim and interlocutory, as may be permissible in law. Such production of the child shall be made without fail within a period of six months from now. The original petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.3/11.