New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Monday said that it is important to save the institution of marriage and India cannot go in the direction of Western nations where children being born out of marriage is not uncommon, Times Of India reported. The top court made the observation while denying a 44-year-old single woman to bear a child through surrogacy.

The petitioner, a 44-year-old woman working at a multinational corporation, had approached the Supreme Court challenging the validity of one of the sections of India's surrogacy regulation law.

The section that she sought to challenge -- Section 2(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act -- defines an 'intending woman' as "an Indian woman who is a widow or divorcee between the age of 35 years and 45 years'.

Intending woman, here in, is a woman who seeks to have a child through surrogacy, a method by which another woman bears a child for a couple or another woman.

A Delhi court upholds inheritance rights of an adopted son under Muslim Personal Law. The court rules that a Muslim individual who doesn't file a declaration under Section 3 of the Shariat Act has opted out of Muslim Personal Law.

NEW DELHI: In a verdict that may have legal and social ramifications, a Delhi court has upheld the inheritance rights of an adopted son of a deceased man.
Additional district judge Praveen Singh held that a Muslim individual who doesn’t file a declaration under Section 3 of the Shariat Act has in effect opted to stay out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law as far as adoption, wills and legacies are concerned.'

The judge said such a person could adopt a child, who would be a legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities attached to such a relationship.
In the process, the court rejected the dead man’s brothers to a “natural” claim on three-quarters of deceased’s self-acquired property under Muslim law. Instead, the court gave the share to his wife and adopted son in a first-of-its-kind ruling on adoption-related inheritance rights of a Muslim individual since adoption in Islam is not legally recognised.
“It is not that in all cases a Muslim by religion has to be bound by Muslim Personal Law and has no choice to move out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law,” the court ruled on a partition suit filed by Iqbal Ahmed, the brother of the dead man, Zamir Ahmed, seeking a share in his property.

Iqbal argued that in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law, only one-fourth of Zamir’s properties should go to his widow with the rest being distributed among his siblings. Zamir’s three sisters were entitled to 15% share and the remaining 60% to the plaintiff and five brothers of the deceased.
The suit claimed that Zamir died childless on July 3, 2008, and inheritance was governed by Muslim Personal Law. In reality, Zamir and his wife, Gulzaro Begum, had adopted a son, Abdul Samad aka Sameer, without making any declaration of this under the Shariat Act.

Under Muslim law of Inheritance, there are three classes of legal heirs: sharers, residuary and distant kindred. The court noted that of the 12 Quranic sharers, only the widow of the deceased survived and said that since the deceased was survived by his widow and a son, the inheritance had to be decided accordingly. It also observed that under the Shariat Act, a Muslim retained the right to stay out of the purview of Muslim Personal Law on certain aspects.
“Deceased Zamir Ahmed had elected not to be governed by Muslim Personal Law on the subject of adoption and thus, if he had adopted a child as claimed by defendant no. 1 (Gulzaro Begum), the said adoption shall be governed by general law of the land,” the court declared.
The court said it couldn’t bring Zamir within the fold of Muslim Law by an indirect route and doing so would be in violation of the choice given to the deceased by law. ADJ Singh said, “The son being a residuary excludes the brothers and sisters of deceased Zamir Ahmed. This being the case, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff and the defendant brothers and sisters are not entitled to the partition as prayed for.”

The Waimanalo couple accused of murdering their 6-year-old adopted daughter in 2021 apparently have retained their parental rights over three of the victim’s young sisters.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: AsktheEU Team <team@asktheeu.org>
Date: Tue 6. Feb 2024 at 18:58
Subject: New response to your FOI request - Complaint related to Romanian Children File - 2002-2006
To: Arun Dohle <arundohle@gmail.com>
 

You have a new response to the access to documents request 'Complaint related to Romanian Children File - 2002-2006' that you made to European Ombudsman.

To view the response, click on the link below.

https://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/complaint_related_to_romanian_ch?nocache=incoming-51953#incoming-51953

When you get there, please update the status to say if the response contains any useful information.

Although all responses are automatically published, we depend on you, the original requester, to evaluate them.

-- the AsktheEU.org team

The Supreme Court denied a 44-year-old single woman's surrogacy plea, citing the importance of preserving marriage in India and rejecting Western norms of children born out of wedlock.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused the plea of a 44-year-old unmarried woman to become a mother through surrogacy, saying that the institution of marriage must be protected and preserved in the country, and it cannot follow the model of Western countries where children are born outside of marriage.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarthana and Augustine George Masih stated that a single woman bearing a child outside marriage was the exception rather than the rule in Indian society.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the ages of 35 and 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This means that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

"It is a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. We are concerned about it. We are speaking from the point of view of a child's welfare. Should the institution of marriage survive or not in the country? We are not like Western countries. The institution of marriage has to be protected. You can call us and tag us conservative, and we accept it," the top court observed while hearing the woman's plea.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the age of 35 to 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This implies that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday (February 5) said that the institution of marriage needed to be protected unlike the West, where children are born outside of marriage, while hearing a petition on allowing surrogacy for unmarried women.

The bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, expressed its reservation while hearing the petition of a 44-year-old woman who approached the court seeking permission to become a mother through surrogacy, the Times of India reported.

According to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, only those women who are widowed or divorced and between the age of 35 to 45 years can avail the surrogacy route. This implies that a single unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.

“It is a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. We are concerned about it. We are speaking from the point of view of (the) child’s welfare. Should the institution of marriage survive or not in the country? We are not like western countries. The institution of marriage has to be protected. You can call us and tag us conservative, and we accept it,” Justice Nagarathna observed.

Two cases of couples from Uttar Pradesh and Kerala wanting to return their adopted children have hit the headlines recently. Let’s look at the rules, what the courts said and why experts say ‘returned children’ are seemingly becoming a bigger problem

Two unusual cases have hit the headlines recently.

The first saw a couple from Uttar Pradesh seeking to return an adopted child.

The adoptive parents approached the Mumbai High Court in December saying they have not bonded with the child and complaining of the child’s ‘bad behaviour.’

The second witnessed a couple from Kerala in November also seeking to return a girl they had adopted in 2018 after their son passed away in a car accident.

The parents had sought to return the three-year-old boy to an orphanage after they reported that they could not bond with the child. The orphanage then approached the Court seeking a dissolution of the adoption.

The Bombay High Court recently annulled the adoption of a three-year old child after the adoptive parents informed that they were not able to bond with the child emotionally [Bal Asha Trust, Mumbai v. Ashu Singhal, Riddhi Singhal].

Bombay High Court Annuls Adoption Of 3-Year-Old As Adoptive Parents Seek Return, Citing Difficulty In Bonding

Raj Bhojani   

•  
• 05:27 PM, 05 Feb 2024
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
•  

Read Time: 03 minutes

The Bombay High Court has canceled the adoption of a child given to a couple in Mumbai. The couple had adopted this 4-year-old child just 5 months ago. The child was handed over to Bal Asha Trust from the police station. The child has a habit of overeating

Mumbai: Bombay High Court has canceled the adoption of a 4-year-old child in his interest. In August 2023, the court gave the child for adoption to a couple. The couple had adopted the child by filing a petition through Bal Asha Trust. After 5 months of adoption, the couple complained to the Trust about the child's uncontrolled bad behavior and habits. Also said that he has not been able to develop emotional attachment with the child, hence we want to return the child. For this they are ready to follow all the rules. Let us tell you that the couple already has a daughter. The trust has suggested counseling to the couple to understand the behavior of the child. So that necessary steps can be taken to improve the behavior of the child. Meanwhile, the Trust suggested adoption experts Central and State Adoption Resource, District Child Protection Unit to study the couple's house.

The aspect of the couple's inability to have a child together was examined. Counseling revealed the child's overeating behavior. The couple also talked about picking up food from the child's dustbin. Then the child was taken to the doctor. After blood test, it was found that the child was on the border line of leptin and diabetes. According to the doctor's opinion, the child may be suffering from obesity and other health problems related to diabetes.
 

The child was found at the police station

During counselling, it was revealed that the couple had no emotional attachment to the child, but the child had an attachment to them. With all the reports and the affidavit of the couple, the Trust had filed a petition in the High Court demanding cancellation of the adoption. The child given in adoption was found by the couple at NM Joshi Marg Police Station, which was handed over to Bal Asha Trust.

The case was heard before Justice Riyaz Chagla. During this time, after considering all the reports and affidavits, Justice Chagla canceled the order of adoption dated 17 August 2023. Also instructed the adoption agency to register the child for adoption again.