Bombay HC Slams Civil Court For Disallowing Single Working Mother To Adopt Child

The Bombay High Court today quashed the order of a civil court that disallowed a divorced woman to adopt a child on the ground that she was a “working lady.”

Thus, won’t be able to give proper care and attention to the adoptive child.

Single-judge Justice Gauri Godse said the reasoning given by the civil court at Bhusawal indicated a “medieval mindset” against a working woman.

The bench observed in the order passed on Tuesday that “The comparison done by the competent court between the biological mother being a housewife and the prospective adoptive mother (single parent) being a working lady reflects a mindset of the medieval conservative concepts of a family.”

Therefore, the High Court underscored that when the statute recognizes a single parent to be eligible for being an adoptive parent, the approach of the civil court defeats the very object of the statute.
The judge held that “Generally, a single parent is bound to be a working person, maybe with some rare exceptions. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, a single parent can be held to be ineligible to be an adoptive parent on the ground that he/she is a working person.”

The Court was seized with a civil revision application filed by a Madhya Pradesh-based woman, seeking permission to adopt the minor child, whose biological parents lived in Maharashtra’s Jalgaon.

As per the plea, the woman complied with the statutory requirements under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act) and also the Adoption Regulations, 2022.

However, on an application for adoption, the civil court in Bhusawal rejected her plea and disallowed her from adopting the child. It noted that the biological mother of the child was a housewife and thus could take better care of the child while the adoptive single mother was a working woman and wouldn’t be able to give personal attention.

In its order, the judge noted that section 57 of the JJ Act provides the eligibility criteria of a prospective parent, which holds a single or divorced person eligible for taking a child in adoption. The section mandates that the prospective adoptive parent shall be physically fit, financially sound, mentally alert, and highly motivated to adopt a child to provide a good upbringing of the child.

Justice Godse opined that “Thus, the reason given by the civil court is not only contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act but is also contrary to the recommendation made by the District Child Welfare Officer and the Assistant Director of CARA. Even otherwise, the reason given by the civil court is unfounded and baseless.”

The civil court, Justice Godse stated, that it was required to verify whether the statutory requirements were complied with and form an opinion as to whether the application for adoption was in the interest of the child.

Erroneously, it got rejected the application by doing guesswork, the court said.

Further, Justice Godse further stated that there was nothing adverse against the adoptive single parent and in fact, she complied with the mandatory norms and even the report of the District Child Welfare Officer held her to be a fit parent for adopting the child.

The Court held that “The impugned order does not record anything adverse regarding the statutory compliances. The application is rejected only on one ground of the adoptive parent being a working lady. The reason recorded by the civil court is unfounded, illegal, perverse, unjust and unacceptable.”

Therefore, the Court quashed the order and paved way for the woman to adopt the child.