← Library
Bombay High CourtFAP/42/2016disposed off

Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal v. Elena Rico Martin, Spanish

2016-06-15Hon'Ble Shri Justice G.S. Patel3 pages

JSN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AND IN ITS GENERAL AND INHERENT JURISDICTION JUDGE'S ORDER NO.113 OF 2016 IN FOREIGN ADOPTION PETITION NO.42 OF 2016 Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal

...Petitioner

And Ms. Elena Rico Martin ...Proposed Adopter Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, for the Petitioner.

Mr. O. Hareendran,Scrutiny Officer of ICSW.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

15th June 2016 PC:- 1.

The Petition proposes the adoption of a female minor named Shridevi. She was born on 28th December 2010. A few months later on 2nd September 2011, she was found abandoned at the bus stand in the jurisdiction of the Osmanabad City Police Station. She was ultimately placed at the Petitioner institution, Bal Vikas Mahila Mandal, Latur on 3rd September 2011. She has since been declared

free for adoption. Despite sufficient notice, no one has claimed the minor or accepted responsibility for her.

2.

The present adoption proposes the minor's adoption by a single working mother who works in Spain as Marketing Manager for an advertising agency. She has a substantial income. Given the fact that this is a single mother adoption, I have paid particular attention to the documents filed including the child study report, the home study report, financial documents and the health documents. I make particular note of the child care arrangement plan by the adoptive mother. In this she says that she will obtain a four months' paid leave from her job. This is permissible in Spanish law. In addition, since she has a flexible work schedule. She can take as much time as she needs to care for the child. She has also agreed to hire a maid, and says too that her brother and sister-in-law will assist her as well.

3.

The scrutiny report by Mr. Hareendran of ICSW is taken on record and marked "X1" for identification. It notes that a fresh IQ report needs to be submitted since the previous one is about three months old. Mr. Kapoor tenders an updated IQ report dated 31st May 2016. This is taken on record and marked "X2" for identification. The updated report confirms that the minor has certain speech impediments. The previous medical examination report of 10th January 2016 also noted that the minor has an articulation disorder i.e. difficulty in speaking properly. She is, however, noted to have above average development for a child her age. The adoptive mother is aware of the speech impediment issue. I also note that there is separate certificate dated 2nd November 2015

from the Audiology and Speech Therapy Clinic, which recommends on-going speech therapy. The adoptive mother has countersigned this report in acceptance of this recommendation. This will be taken to be an undertaking by the adoptive mother to provide the necessary therapy under suitable professional guidance. 4.

In this view of the matter, and subject to these terms, the Petition is allowed and the Judge's Order is separately signed. (G. S. PATEL, J.)