#"Rahul Tripathi"

[journalistcafe]

कोलकाता से मिली हार के बाद मैदान पर लेट फूट-फूटकर रोया दिल्ली का सलामी बल्लेबाज, देखें वीडियो

कोलकाता से मिली हार के बाद मैदान पर लेट फूट-फूटकर रोया दिल्ली का सलामी बल्लेबाज, देखें वीडियो

कोलकाता नाइट राइडर्स ने बुधवार को एक एंटरटेनिंग मैंच में दिल्ली कैपिटल्स को 3 विकेट से मात देकर तीसरी बार आईपीएल के फाइनल में जगह बना ली है। बता दें केकेआर को आखिरी ओवर में 7 रन की दरकार थी। ऐसे में आखिरी ओवर दिल्ली की ओर से अश्विन ने किया। अश्विन ने ओवर में 2 विकेट लेकर मैच को काफी रोमांचक बना दिया। हालांकि, राहुल त्रिपाठी ने छक्का लगाकर केकेआऱ को तीसरी बार आईपीएल के फाइनल में पहुंचा दिया। इस…

[muralimohan]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH - a Divorcee Wife can give her son in Adoption = the petitioner i.e. the mother of Master Lakshya is his guardian. It can also not be denied that the respondent no.3-Gaurav Gupta, the biological father of Master Lakshya has completely forsaken him and has given up all his rights including the right of visitation and has also categorically given the responsibility of bringing up the minor to the petitioner. In the proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court concerned under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the affidavit filed by respondent no.3, contents whereof have been quoted herein before, is self speaking and explanatory. Biological father of the child, in the present case has abandoned him; rather has renounced him and has not performed any of his duties, which he owes to the child. He has also given up all his rights including the right of visitation. Master Lakshya also requires an atmosphere of more enduring relationship. In this background, I am in complete agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Teesta Chattoraj (supra) and reiterate that if the biological father in this case has not taken any measures to bear his responsibility, the laws and the Court will hesitate to grant any such right in favour of a parent who has failed to do so. I further agree with the said judgment of Delhi High Court with all sincerity where it enunciates that though Indian law does not, on renunciation of child by either parent, vests an exclusive right in the other to give the child in adoption, however, such renunciation of the child by a parent can be taken into consideration while determining whether the power to give in adoption has been delegated, or to determine the consent to giving in adoption. This Court can also not loose sight of the duty cast on it to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to secure the care, protection and welfare of the child. International Convention on Rights of Child to which India is a signatory, also talks about ensuring a system of adoption to be in place which serves the best interest of the child, the same being of paramount importance. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the learned court below, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the application moved by the petitioner seeking leave to give Master Lakshya in adoption is allowed. The petitioner, thus, will be permitted to give Master Lakshya in adoption to respondent no.1 for which purpose giving and taking ceremony in adoption shall be performed and a deed of adoption shall also be executed and registered in terms of section 16 of the Act, 1956.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH – a Divorcee Wife can give her son in Adoption = the petitioner i.e. the mother of Master Lakshya is his guardian. It can also not be denied that the respondent no.3-Gaurav Gupta, the biological father of Master Lakshya has completely forsaken him and has given up all his rights including the right of visitation and has also categorically given the responsibility of bringing up the minor to the petitioner. In the proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court concerned under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the affidavit filed by respondent no.3, contents whereof have been quoted herein before, is self speaking and explanatory. Biological father of the child, in the present case has abandoned him; rather has renounced him and has not performed any of his duties, which he owes to the child. He has also given up all his rights including the right of visitation. Master Lakshya also requires an atmosphere of more enduring relationship. In this background, I am in complete agreement with the judgment of the Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Teesta Chattoraj (supra) and reiterate that if the biological father in this case has not taken any measures to bear his responsibility, the laws and the Court will hesitate to grant any such right in favour of a parent who has failed to do so. I further agree with the said judgment of Delhi High Court with all sincerity where it enunciates that though Indian law does not, on renunciation of child by either parent, vests an exclusive right in the other to give the child in adoption, however, such renunciation of the child by a parent can be taken into consideration while determining whether the power to give in adoption has been delegated, or to determine the consent to giving in adoption. This Court can also not loose sight of the duty cast on it to exercise parens patriae jurisdiction to secure the care, protection and welfare of the child. International Convention on Rights of Child to which India is a signatory, also talks about ensuring a system of adoption to be in place which serves the best interest of the child, the same being of paramount importance. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.07.2017 passed by the learned court below, as is contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the application moved by the petitioner seeking leave to give Master Lakshya in adoption is allowed. The petitioner, thus, will be permitted to give Master Lakshya in adoption to respondent no.1 for which purpose giving and taking ceremony in adoption shall be performed and a deed of adoption shall also be executed and registered in terms of section 16 of the Act, 1956.

  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

Reserved A.F.R. Court No. – 5

Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. – 15554 of 2017 Petitioner :- Shweta Gupta Respondent :- Rahul Keshav Jadhao & Anr Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Tripathi,Ms. Bulbul Godiyal (Amicus) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,O.P. Nag

Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. These proceedings, under Article 226 of Constitution of…