HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY APPEAL AGAINST ORDER No. 3158 OF 2002 Dated 28th January, 2010. BETWEEN St.Theresa’s Tender Loving Care Home, A Society Registered under the AP (TA) Public Societies Registration Act, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Rep. By its Chief Coordinator Sister, Theresa Maria Kattikaren ….Appellant and All concerned and others … Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY APPEAL AGAINST ORDER No. 3158 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao) The ﬁrst appellant herein, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, is a voluntary organization running orphanage, old age homes, hospitals etc and doing other social welfare activities. It ﬁled the present appeal assailing the order dated 7.10.2002 passed in OP.No. 308 of 2001 by the learned Judge, Family Court, at Secunderabad, dismissing the petition ﬁled by it under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint the ﬁrst and second appellants herein as guardians for the minor child, Basanthi. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The second and third appellants approached the ﬁrst appellant to adopt minor female child, namely, Basanthi and instituted the subject petition under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act to appoint them as Guardians to the said minor child, Basanthi. To the said application, State was made as party-respondent, which ﬁled counter, Additional Counter and reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioners/appellants. Considering the respective pleadings, the Court below framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the ﬁrst petitioner followed the procedure laid down by CARA in fostering the child to the petitioners 2 and 3 ? 2. Whether the ﬁrst petitioner is entitled to process the child for adoption ? 3. Whether the petitioners 2 and 3 can be appointed as guardians of the minor child, Basanthi ? During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners/appellants, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. A1 to A16 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs. B1 and B2 were marked. The Court below, considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the appellants failed to obtain the consent of the biological parents of the minor child-Basanthi. Sri A.L.Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that keeping in view the welfare of the minor child being utmost important and having regard to the enquiry conducted in the subject application of this nature, the Court below ought not to have insisted for requirement of consent from the biological parents nor would it also be possible to establish whether the biological parents are residing in a particular place nor they are identiﬁable and hence the Court below was not right in rejecting the application. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent-State submitted that the order of the Court below is sustainable in the eye of law and does not call for any interference by this Court. Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and considering the material brought on record, the point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the consent of the biological parents is mandatory or a pre-condition for granting guardianship. There is no dispute with regard to the chequered evidence adduced in the matter. Admittedly the minor child is an abandoned minor female girl, whose biological parents are not traceable. Such child was sought adoption by the appellants 2 and 3. Accordingly they ﬁled the subject petition under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1980. None were examined on behalf of the appellants 2 and 3 before the Court below. On behalf of the ﬁrst appellant, P.W.1 was examined, who stated that she has taken complete address and particulars of the natural parents on the relinquishment deed. During the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that there are two witnesses to the relinquishment deed and both of them belonged to their institution and they are social workers. It is borne out from the record that most of the biological parents who came to surrender their children are illiterates and were not in a position to give their residential addresses correctly; and that the biological parents are either unwed mothers or persons belonging to nomadic tribes who move from place to place in search of livelihood. It is the case of the ﬁrst appellant that they do not have any other particulars other than those mentioned in the relinquishment deed. Before adverting further on this aspect, it is necessary to have a look on the provisions under Sections 7 to 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980. Section 7 of the said Act deals with the power of the Court to make order as to guardianship, Section 8 deals with persons entitled to apply for order, Section 9 deals with jurisdiction of the Court to entertain application, and Section 10 deals with form of application to be made for adoption. From a reading of the above provisions, it can be says that the very object of the procedure is not only for taking care and welfare of minor child, but warrants to look into other factors as to whether the person/s to be appointed as guardian/s are ﬁt enough sociologically irrespective of their religion to which they belonged to. In cases where a person has expressed his desire to get himself appointed as the guardian of minor child, the Court should keep in mind that the minor’s interest is of paramount consideration and it should ﬁnd out the material for the purpose of enabling it to judge whether such person should be permitted to be the guardian of the minor. There is no necessity beyond this warranting enquire into the religion aspect. Further, Section 17 of the Act while considering the such application and the basic principles governing the welfare of the minor, the Court also has to give utmost care for the welfare of the minor child. Section 17 of the Act reads as follows: “17. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN APPOINTING GUARDIAN: (1) In appointing or declaring the guardian of a minor, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be guided by what, consistently with the law to which the minor is subject , appears in the circumstances to be for the welfare of the minor. (2) In considering what will be for the welfare of the minor, the Court shall have regard to the age, sex and religion of the minor, the character and capacity of the proposed guardian and his nearness of kind to the minor, the wishes, if any , of a deceased parent, and any existing or previous relations of the proposed guardian with the minor or his property. (3) If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference, the Court may consider that preference. (4) The Court shall not appoint or declare any person to be a guardian against his will.” From a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that it is in the case of where biological parents are identifiable, necessarily warrants to have a bearing on their religion for the purpose of welfare of such minor child and to obtain their consent and it is thus take cares in such institutional matters, but not otherwise. But, in the present case, biological parents of the minor child are not traceable. In the facts and circumstances of this type of case, the biological parents of the minor child are either unwed mothers or persons belonging to nomadic tribes who move from place to place in search of their livelihood and the same is not disputed or denied anywhere. Even Rule 5 of the Role of Recognized Indian Agencies for Adoption says that every recognized agency shall furnish full details of the child to the prospective adoptive parents except the names and addresses of the biological parents where known to the agency. The said rule reads as follows: “Every recognized agency shall also give full details of the child to the prospective adoptive parents except the names and addresses of the biological parents where known to the agency. It is only when all eﬀorts to place the child within the Country fails then the child would be cleared for inter country adoption. These eﬀorts should include contracting the VCA within the area of operation. A clearance certiﬁcate should be taken from VCA in this regard. Such clearance certiﬁcate shall be given by VCA, if within 60 days from the date of application.” From the above we hold that the rejection of the petition by the Court below on the ground that the appellants failed to obtain consent of the biological parents is not correct and such obtaining of consent of the biological parents of the minor child where their details or identities are not known to such agency would not necessarily warrants. In that view of the matter, the order under appeal dated 7.10.2002 passed in OP.No. 308 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad is set aside and appellants 2 and 3 are appointed as guardians of the minor female child, Basanthi. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. --------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ----------------------------------------------- JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY DATED 28T H JANUARY, 2010. MSNR.