Factual Matrix 

In the matter of Shabnamjahan v. State of Maharashtra, A civil revision request was made by a prospective adoptive parent and the child’s biological parents under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act 2015 in an effort to overturn the District Court of Bhusawal’s decision to deny the adoption request. The applicant had previously registered with the child adoption and resource information and guidance assistance for the adoption of a minor child. The applicant is the mother’s biological sister in real life. The applicant went to the District Court to ask for the adoption of the minor kid and to have his or her parental status established. In accordance with Rule 36 of the Adoption Regulations, 2017. The applicant also requested a change to the minor child’s birth certificate. However, the District Court in Bhusawal denied the aforementioned application for the adoption of a minor child.

Analysis of Court Decision 

The Bombay High Court’s single-judge bench, presided over by Justice Gauri Godse, approved the applicant’s request for a revision as well as the single prospective adoptive parent’s request to adopt the young kid.

The applicant wanted to adopt the minor kid, and the court noticed that the child’s biological parents had provided the requisite consent form. According to the court, the current case involves the adoption of a minor kid by one relative from another. The Court felt it necessary to make reference to the pertinent JJ Act and Regulations of 2017 provisions. Following a review of Subsection (2) of Section 56 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015, the Court stated that it is permissible, subject to the provisions of the JJ Act and the Authority’s rules, for one relative to adopt a child from another relative, regardless of religion.

The court further stated that the application had been incorrectly denied by the competent court’s conjecture. The Competent Court’s juxtaposition of the biological mother, who is a housewife, and the potential adoptive mother, a single mother who works, illustrates the attitude of mediaeval traditional family values. The Court ruled that the Competent Court’s method undermined the basic purpose of the act because the statute recognised a single parent as being qualified to be an adoptive parent. According to the court, single parents are typically required to work, possibly with a few unusual exceptions. As a result, the fact that a single parent works does not, by any means, exclude them from being an adoptive parent. As a result, the Court upheld the revision request and annulled the District Judge’s contested order.