In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... F.A.O. No.5642 of 2011 ..... Date of decision:1.12.2011 Surjit Singh Parhar and another .....Appellants v. Gian Singh and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is an appeal against the order passed by the Guardian Judge in a petition under sections 9 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (for short - `the Act') and read with Section 41 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 vide which the declaration sought by the petitioners regarding the adoption of Karandeep Singh has been declined. It is case of the petitioners that before going abroad they were residing in the village where parents of the child were also residing. The petitioners were not having any child from their wedlock. As their relations were cordial with respondent No. 1 and 2, they decided to take son of the F.A.O. No.5642 of 2011 [2] respondents, namely, Karandeep Singh in adoption. It is further their case case that on 17th December, 2006 in the presence of Shri Guru Granth Sahib, friends and relatives of both parties, respondents gave in adoption their son Karandeep Singh to petitioner No. 2 who was authorized by her husband petitioner No. 1 through special power of Attorney to take the child in adoption. It is further their case that the adoption deed was reduced into writing on 18th December, 2006 which was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar the Jalandhar as the adoptive mother of Karandeep Singh had to go to Canada she gave custody of child to Baldev Kaur Minhas who was taking care of the child. In pursuance to the notice, respondents appeared and filed a written statement admitting all the facts as taken in the petition. As the parties were not in dispute, in view of the admitted facts in the written statement by the respondents, the statements of the parties were recorded. The Guardian Judge while taking into account the effect of Section 8 of the Act that no female has a right to adopt a son or daughter unless and until her marriage has been dissolved or her husband is dead or has completely and finally given up the world, dismissed this petition. This is how this first appeal against the order has come up before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that after the adoption, an adoption deed was prepared and it was got registered. It was further argued that once a document has been registered, presumption of truth is attached to this document and as such the adoption should have been F.A.O. No.5642 of 2011 [3] held to be legal and valid. It was also argued that the natural parents of Karandeep Singh also supported the case of of the appellants and in view of their evidence, the petition should have been allowed. Respondents No. 1and 2 in the written statement have admitted the claim of the petitioners. The Guardian Court has dismissed the suit in view of Section 8 of the said Act which provides that no female Hindu has a right to adopt the son or daughter unless and until her husband is dead or has renounced the world. The Court has also taken into account that the original special power of attorney was neither produced nor proved by PW.1 Baldev Kaur Minhas. It was also found that none of the petitioners have stepped into the witness box to corroborate their version. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants has produced the original power of attorney according to which the appellants have authorized PW.1 Baldev Kaur Minhas to depose in the Court on their behalf. It is also important to note that both the natural parents of Karandeep Singh have supported the case of the appellants and the fact regarding adoption. This Court is of the considered opinion that claim of the appellants cannot be dismissed simply on the ground that original power of attorney is not there on the Court file or that petitioner No. 1 Surjit Singh Parhar has not consented for this adoption. Original power of attorney has been produced in the Court today. The fact that the appellants themselves have not come to Court can be rectified by directing them to appear in person. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under appeal is set aside. The ends of justice can be met by remanding this case back to the Guardian Court with the direction that both F.A.O. No.5642 of 2011 [4] the appellants No. 1 and 2 will put an appearance in that Court within a period of six months from the date of passing of this order. Their statements will be recorded afresh in the Guardian Court. The case is remanded back to the trial Court. December 1, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*