STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER versus STATE AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 951 · Decided: 08-02-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 1 S.C.R. 951 
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER 
v. 
STATE AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1053 of 2013) 
FEBRUARY 08, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.) 
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890: 
· ss .. 7 and 26 - Applications by appellant, a female 
American citizen, for an order appointing her as guardian of 
A 
B 
c 
a minor female orphan and for permission to take the child 
out of country for purpose of adoption - Held: Claim of 
appellant will have to be necessarily considered on the basis 0 
of the law as in force on date, namely, the provisions of the 
JJ Act and the Rules framed thereunder and Guidelines of 
2011 which have been conferred a statutory sanction - Having 
regard to totality of facts of the case, proposed adoption would 
be beneficial to child apart from being consistent with legal E 
entitlement of appellant - Appellant is appointed as legal 
guardian of the child and is granted permission to take the 
child to USA - CARA will issue the necessary conformity 
certificate as contemplated under clause 34(4) of the 
Guidelines of 2011 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection 
of Children) Act, 2000 - s. 41 - Juvenile Justice (Care and F 
Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, r. 33 - Guidelines for 
Adoption from India, 2006 - Guidelines Governing the 
Adoption of Children, 2011 - Adoption - Inter country 
adoption. 
The appellant, an American citizen, by an application 
u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the Act), 
sought for an order appointing her as guardian of a 10 
years old female orphan. By another application u/s 26 
G 
951 
H 
952 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A of the Act, she sought permission of the court to take the 
child out of the country for the purpose of adoption. Both 
the applications were rejected on the sole ground that the 
appellant being a single prospective adoptive parent was 
aged about 53 years whereas for such a person the 
B maximum permissible age as prescribed by the 
Government of India Guidelines in force was 45. The High 
Court upheld the orders. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: 1.1. Under sub-s. (3) of s. 41 of the Juvenile 
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ 
Act) as amended by Act 33 of 2006 and made effective 
from 22.8.2006, power has been conferred in the court to 
give a child in adoption upon satisfaction that the various 
D guidelines issued from time to time, either by the State 
Government or the Central Adoption Resource Agency 
(CARA) and notified by the Central Government have 
been followed in the given case. Further, r. 33(2) of the 
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 
E 2007 makes it clear that "for all matters relating to 
adoption, the guidelines issued by CARA and notified by 
the Central Government under sub-s. (3) of s.41 of the 
Act, shall apply." The Guidelines for Adoption from India, 
2006 (Guidelines of 2006) stand repealed by the 
F Guidelines Governing the Adoption of Children, 2011 
(Guidelines of 2011 ). By virtue of the provisions of r. 33(2) 
it is the Guidelines of 2011 notified u/s 41 (3) of the JJ Act 
which will now govern all matters pertaining to inter-
country adoptions virtually conferring on the said 
G Guidelines a statutory flavour and sanction. [para 8-9] 
[961-B-E; 962-A, D-E] 
Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India 1984 (2) 
SCR 795 = (1984) 2 sec 244 - referred to 
H 
1.2. The claim of the appellant along with 
STEPHANIE JOAN BECKER v. STATE AND ORS. 
953 
. 
consequential relief, if any, will have to be necessarily 
A 
considered on.the basis of the law as in force on date, 
namely, the provisions of the JJ Act and the Rules 
framed thereunder and the Guidelines of 2011. The 
appellant's case for adoption has been sponsored by an 
agency (Journeys of the Heart, USA) rendering service 
B 
in USA which is recognized by CARA. The Home Study 
Report of the family of the appellant indicates that the 
appellant apart from being financially solvent is a person 
of amicable disposition who has developed affinity for 
Indian culture and Indian children. The appellant, though c 
unmarried, has the support of her brother and other 
family members who have promised to look after the child 
in the event such a situation becomes necessary for any 
reason whatsoever. Each and every norm of the adoption 
process spelt out under the Guidelines of 2006, as well 
0 
as the Guidelines of 2011, has been adhered to. If the 
foreign adoptive parent is otherwi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.