Bombay HC Allows Adoption Of A 22-Year-Old Girl Sought By 66-Year-Old 'Guardian' Who Raised Her

The Bombay High Court in a signicant ruling, allowed an adoption petition led by

one Mathew Inacio Abreo, a 66-year-old man who sought adoption of Malaica Abreo, a

22-year-old girl who was raised by Mathew and his wife Dora.

Justice GS Kulkarni declared the petitioner as the adoptive parent of Malaica and

granted him liberty to apply before Municipal Authorities to issue a Birth Certicate of

Malaica Maria Abreo born on June 16, 1997 and showing the petitioner Mathew and

(late) Dora Abreo as her father and mother.

Also Read - 'Freedom Of Speech Necessary For Success Of Democracy': Mysuru

Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In 'Free Kashmir' Placard Case [Read Order]

In 1998, the petitioner and his wife Dora had led a guardian petition. By an order

dated March 11, 1998 the said petition was allowed, whereby the petitioner and his

wife were appointed as guardians of Malaica who has not even 2 years old at the time

and today she is about 22 years old.

Petitioner's counsel Rakesh Kapoor submitted that Malaica has throughout remained

under the guardianship of the petitioner since 1998 and if adoption as prayed for by

the petitioner is not granted, it will cause a serious prejudice to Malaica in as much as

she would be deprived of her legitimate entitlement to the legal status to have the

petitioner as her parent and would be foisted with a status of being an orphan,

although she was brought up by the petitioner as his own daughter.

In support to his contention, Kapoor relied upon the decision of Justice FI Rebello, (as

he then was) in the case of Manuel Theodore Vs. Unknown reported in 2000, to

contend that it would be necessary requirement to recognize a constitutional right of a

citizen to have a family and parents in adoption. Kapoor further submitted that the

legislative vacuum in case of adoption when a citizen professes Christian faith was

recognized in the said decision of Justice Rebello.

The petitioner lives in Santacruz and has no other biological children. Dora, his wife

passed away in 2018 after suffering from a heart attack.

Court noted that there is a adoption home study and follow-up visit report dated

October 1, 2019 conducted by the social worker Ms. Clipsy Banji, BA, MSW, PGPDM,

which records that petitioner is a committed father to Malaica. It records that his

family comes from a very humble background, having good moral values. The report

records that in the last month petitioner was with cancer of the pancreas and is

undergoing chemotherapy at the Holy Spirit Hospital in Andheri. It is also recorded

that due to the medical treatment, he stays with his sister at Andheri in Mumbai as it

is convenient for him to travel and rest.

The report states that petitioner and Malaica share a loving relationship with one

another. It is also stated that the petitioner who is now ailing needs his daughter's

support, love and affection at this crucial time.

Whereas, the follow-up report dated October 1, 2019 for Malaica states that she is an

active, smart and bright young girl. She was told about her adoptive status when she

was in the 6th standard and from then she has accepted her reality in a matured

manner. She has completed her graduation in B.Sc and from the last one year has

been employed as a Key Accounts Executive (Sales )with Aspri Spirits Pvt. Ltd. She is

happy to work and establish her own nances and loves the feeling of being

economically independent even as she supports her ailing father, report states.

After examining the facts at hand, Justice Kulkarni noted-

"Malaica is now well integrated into the petitioner's family and is an inextricable part

of the petitioner's family. Defacto she has a status of being petitioner's daughter. In

my opinion mere guardianship being conferred on the petitioner would certainly not

suce and it has lost its ecacy as Malaica is now a major.

In the facts of the case Malaica is denitely in requirement of being conferred a legal

status of being the daughter of the petitioner. Malaica has to lead her life with dignity

and condence which she would be able do when the petitioner's right to adopt her is

recognized and reciprocally Malaica's right to be adopted by the petitioner also nds a

legal recognition. It is thus necessary that these basic human rights as guaranteed

and recognized by the Constitution are enforced and implemented. Hence it is

imperative to permit adoption of Malaica by the petitioner even when Malaica has now

attained majority by applying the principles as laid down by this court in the case of

Manuel Theodore."

After interacting with Malaica Justice Kulkarni observed that she was eagerly awaiting

legal recognition of her status as the petitioner's daughter. Thus, the petition was

allowed.