Jack Alves v. Danielle Ann Alves Adoption

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION by JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR Date:

2026.01.23 15:00:31 +0530 JYOTI PRAKASH PAWAR AND IN ITS GENERAL AND INHERENT JURISDICTION INDIAN ADOPTION PETITION NO. 2 OF 2026 Jack Alves, aged 72 years, Indian National, residing at Merri Ville CHS Ltd., Plot No. 25, St. Andrew's Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400 050. ...

Petitioner ______________________________________ Mr. Rakesh K. L. Kapoor for Petitioner.

Mr. O. Hareendran - Scrutiny Officer - ICSW present. Mr. Jack Alves - Adoptive Father & Ms. Danielle Ann Alves - Adoptive Female present in Chamber.

Mr. Dilip S. Gurav, Chamber Registrar present. _______________________________________ CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

DATE :

14th JANUARY 2026 ORDER:

1.

The present Indian Adoption Petition seeks orders from this Court for the adoption of an adult female viz. Danielle Ann ('Adoptee') born on 28th September 1988. In fact, the Adoptee is presently married. 2.

The Adoptee was an inmate of Missionaries of Charity, Church Road, Vile Parle West, Mumbai - 400 056. The said Missionaries of Charity

proposed her in Guardianship to the Petitioner vide Indian Guardianship Petition No. 6 of 1989 and pursuant to an order of this Court dated 18th January 1989 passed therein, the Petitioner [with the consent of his wife Mrs. Marilyn Cheryl Alves, since deceased] was appointed as the guardian of the said Adoptee. The said Guardianship Petition is on record at Exhibit A to the present Petition.

3.

The said order dated 18th January 1989 also records the undertaking of the Petitioner that he would adopt the Adoptee in the event of any law being passed permitting Christians to adopt, since at that time, it was widely believed that Christianity did not permit adoption. 4.

Mr. Rakesh K. L. Kapoor, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner has contended that after the order dated 18th January 1989 was passed, the Adoptee has remained under the guardianship of the Petitioner. He asserts that if the Petitioner is not permitted to adopt the Adoptee, it will cause serious prejudice to her inasmuch as, she would be deprived of her legitimate entitlement to the legal status of being the daughter of the Petitioner, given that she was brought up by the Petitioner and his late wife as their own daughter since then. He submits that even though the Adoptee has attained majority and is no longer a minor, the present Petition is required to be allowed by this Court.

5.

In support of this submission, Mr. Kapoor relies on the decision of this Court in Manuel Theodore D' Souza v. Unknown ('Manuel Theodore case'),1 in which the constitutional right of citizens to have a family and parents in adoption was recognised, especially for Christians, for whom no personal law on adoption exists till date. Mr. Kapoor also relies upon another decision of this Court dated 4th September 2024, passed in Indian Adoption Petition No. 77 of 2024 which, in turn, relies upon the Manuel Theodore case and permits the adoption of an adult female to be done, as sought in the present case. 6.

Mr. Kapoor contends that the legislative vacuum in the case of adoption when a citizen professes Christian faith is recognised in the said decision of Manuel Theodore's case and submits that in the peculiar facts of the present case, although there is some delay on the part of the Petitioner in approaching this Court to adopt the Adoptee, it would be in the Adoptee's best interest if the present Petition is allowed.

7.

The Petitioner is an Indian citizen, residing at Bandra (West), Mumbai, and aged about 72 years. He was married to Mrs. Marilyn Cheryl Alves who has since passed away on 21st April 2017. The Petitioner and his wife had no biological children.

1 1999 SCC OnLine Bom 690

8.

The Petitioner had one more daughter, Tracey-Ann Kim Alves, born on 2nd September 1991. The Petitioner had been appointed as her guardian by this Court on 18th March 1992 in Indian Guardianship Petition No. 40 of 1992. However, Tracey-Ann Kim Alves is stated to have passed away on 10th October 2025 due to Metabolic Dysfunction Associated Stenotic Liver Disease and other medical complications.

9.

The Medical Certificate dated 12th November 2025 of the Petitioner is on record at Exhibit D-1 to the present Petition and it reveals that the Petitioner has no health issues or admissions and is not undergoing any major surgeries or procedures.

10.

The Medical Certificate of the Adoptee dated 17th November 2025 is also on record at Exhibit J of the present Petition and it reveals that she is medically fit. Her Aadhar Card copy and PAN Card copy, as well as her consent to this adoption are also on record at Exhibit I and Exhibit K respectively to the present Petition.

11.

The Petitioner is a retired employee of "The Retreat" after serving there for 3 decades. He is stated to have a decent and stable income by way of interest from his savings as well as dividend income from his shares and mutual funds. A copy of the Petitioner's PAN Card and Aadhar Card are on record at

Exhibit D and Exhibit E-2 respectively to the present Petition. The supporting financial documents are on record at Exhibit E and Exhibit E-1 to the present Petition.

12.

The Adoption Home Study Report dated 8th June 2025 conducted by the Social Worker Ms. Clipsy Banji, BA, MSW, PDPDM is on record and the report has commended the Adoptee's case of adoption, as it will be in her best interest. The report goes on to state that the family appears happy and content and the Petitioner is well-prepared to continue supporting the Adoptee's future growth and well-being. The said report is on record at Exhibit F to the present Petition.

13.

The follow-up report of the Adoptee dated 30th June 2025 states that she is a healthy, cheerful and enthusiastic young woman who brings vibrancy and positivity in her surroundings. The Adoptee is stated to have completed her Hotel Management studies from Rizvi College in Mumbai and since the past 12 years, she is stated to have been working in the Hospitality field and is currently employed with "All Things Nice" as a Hospitality Marketing Manager. The Adoptee is also stated to be happily married since the past 4 years to Mr. Clifford D' Costa, an Audio Engineer who works on freelance projects. They currently reside in an apartment in Bandra. She is stated to be career

oriented and focused on her personal growth. The said Follow-Up Report is on record at Exhibit F-1 to the present Petition. 14.

The Recommendation letters in support of the Adoptee's adoption from relatives and close friends are also on record at Exhibit G to the present Petition.

15.

It is further submitted by Mr. Kapoor that even after attaining the age of majority on 28th September 2006, the Adoptee continued to live with the Petitioner and his wife as their family member sharing with them the family residential house, food and shelter as if she is the biological child of the Petitioner. He states that over the years, she has integrated herself as a member of the adoptive family and has bonded very well with the Petitioner, as any daughter would, with her real father.

16.

I have heard Mr. Kapoor and considered his submissions. I have also perused all the material placed before the Court including the documents annexed to the Petition. Mr. O. Hareendran, from the Indian Council of Social Welfare ('ICSW') has also tendered his representation in support of the above adoption. The same is taken on record and marked 'X' for identification. 17.

It is to be noted that since the passing of the order dated 18th January 1989 in Guardianship Petition No. 6 of 1989, the Adoptee has

throughout remained under the guardianship of the Petitioner, even after she attained majority. From the Home Study Report dated 8th June 2025, it is clear that the Adoptee is now well integrated into the Petitioner's family and is a very important part of the Petitioner's life. De- facto she has the status of being the Petitioner's daughter. When one takes all of these facts into consideration, mere guardianship status being conferred on the Petitioner would not suffice as it is has lost its efficacy since the Adoptee is now a major. Therefore, from the material placed on the record I am of the opinion that the Adoptee definitely requires being conferred with the legal status of being the daughter of the Petitioner.

18.

As far as the delay in filing this Petition is concerned, there is no reason for me to disbelieve the Petitioner that he was not aware of the landmark judgment in the Manuel Theodore case pursuant to which adoption in the Christian community has been permitted.

19.

The Guardianship Order dated 18th January 1989 and the guardianship of the Petitioner with the Adoptee appears to be without any issues or complaints. The said order permitting guardianship itself records the Petitioner's undertaking to adopt the Adoptee in the event of any law being passed permitting Christians to adopt. The two decisions cited above by Mr. Kapoor clearly permit adoption amongst the Christian community. As noted

therein, the fundamental right to life of any orphaned, abandoned or similarly situated child includes the right to be adopted by a willing parent and to have a home, name and nationality. Moreover, as observed in the Manuel Theodore case, in the absence of any legislation setting out who can adopt, person(s) who have taken a child in guardianship under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 will have the right to petition the Courts to adopt the child. 20.

Even though the Adoptee has attained majority and is married, I am of the view that permitting this adoption will not only give her social respectability but will also give a sense of joy and security to the Petitioner by ensuring that the bond between a father and daughter is fulfilled. It is thus necessary that these basic rights as guaranteed and recognized by the Constitution are enforced. I therefore find that it would be in the best interests of both, the Adoptee as well as the Petitioner if she is permitted to be adopted by the Petitioner.

21.

The Adoptee, along with the Petitioner, were present at today's hearing, wherein I had the opportunity of interacting with them. From the interaction, I find that the Adoptee has a positive approach towards life and is aware of the surrounding circumstances especially those connected with the present Adoption Petition. She is eagerly waiting to be conferred the legal status

of being the daughter of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is also fully aware of his rights and actions and seeks the reliefs sought in the present Petition. 22.

Considering that as per the order dated 18th January 1989 passed in Guardianship Petition No. 6 of 1989, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand Only) was already deposited by the Petitioner in the name of the Adoptee, there is no question of any further investment. In fact, an amount of Rs. 1 crore now stands in the name of the Adoptee (with the Petitioner as the Nominee thereof), as can be seen from the Fixed Deposit Confirmation/Renewal Advice issued by HDFC Bank for Deposit Account Number 50301210426581 which is annexed at Page No. 45A at Exhibit E-1 to the present Petition. 23.

After hearing Mr. Kapoor and interacting with the Adoptee and the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that this order of adoption should relate back to the date of the Adoptee attaining majority, viz. 28th September 2006. It is accordingly so ordered.

24.

Accordingly, the present Adoption Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) thereof, which read thus:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the Petitioner and his (Late) Mrs. Marilyn Cheryl Alves as Adoptive Parents of the said female Danielle Ann, under the guardianship of the Petitioner.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the delay in filing the present Petition.

(c) That the Petitioner be allowed to change the name of the said female from 'Danielle Ann' to 'Danielle Ann Alves'.

(d) That the concerned Municipal Authority/Birth Certificate issuing Authority may be directed to issue Birth Certificate in the name of the said female Danielle Ann Alves, born on 28/09/1988 and stating that thereon that the Petitioners as the Parents of the said female Danielle Ann Alves."

25.

The Judge's Order to this effect is accepted and also separately signed but will be read with the clarification given above as to the date of effect. 26.

The present Indian Adoption Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )