Last update:
The Superior Court of Bombay addressed the authorities to reconsider the application for adoption of a couple, annuling the decision that they must have two disabled children.
The Superior Court of Bombay ordered the face to reconsider the couple’s adoption request.
In a Landmark Ruling that reaffirm the rights of Hopeful Parents and the Spirit of Compassion Underpinning Adoption Laws, The Bombay High Court Directorate Authorities to reconsider the adoption Application of a mumbai couples Whoed permission to adoppt, atmission time ATMISCION TIME DEID, ATMISSION TIMDDD-AMISION TIMDD-AMISION TIMDD-AMISION TIDD-INTMISSION TIDDD-AMISION TIDDD-AMISION TO ADED PERMIT TO ACCUMULATE PERMIT, ATMISSION TO THE THIRD TECHNIQUE despite having two children with disabilities.
A bank that includes Judges Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna annulled the decision of the Central Adoption Resources Authority (face) 2023 that rejected the couple’s request only on the basics that they already had two biological children. In its judgment of April 7, the Court of the Superior Court decreased largely on the rigid interpretation of adoption regulations and underlined the importance of understanding adoption as a deeply human law, rather than purely procedural.
The couple, who became parents in 2014 and 2019 to two children covered by the law of people with disabilities, approached the court after Cara rejected his request to adopt a third child, this time, a child without disabilities. Face cited a 2023 guide issued under the revised adoption regulations of 2022, which restrict couples with two existing biological children to adopt only children “or” difficult to place. “
In Their Plea, The Couple Argued That This Interpretation was Unfair and Ignored The Timing of Their Application, Which was submitted on SEPTERMER 10, 2022, Just Days Before the New Rules Tok Effect on Sept Fress 22. They contemplated that Under the Dave Lever, EsSPECTE RULES, ESSPECT Rules, Specx, Spesalle, Spesalle, Spesalle, Spesalli, explained Specx, Secomi, Specx, Secomi, Secomi, Secomy, Secomi, Secomi, Secomi, Secomi, Seconti, Secomi, Secomi, Secomi, Secomi, Secomi, Secont. His home study report had already been completed on the presentation date.
The Superior Court put on the couple’s side, saying that the rules should not be used to suffocate the natural human desire to build a significant and balanced family life. “If they are sex, new, New Hope and Optimism with the ability to add a new member to your family and in making mutual satisfaction to make life more significant, then there is nothing to do in it,” said the bank.
The sentence went further to criticize the inflexible application of the law of face, indicating that a legal order never prevented a couple, simply because they already have Shildwout ONDE. “There are powers under the adoption regulations of 2022 to ‘relax’ the provisions in ‘special circumstances’. This case is sneak in that category,” the court observed.
The ruling urged the adoption frames to be applied in an integral way, with sensitivity to individual family circumstances instead of the application of the law.
Deepening the emotional and philosophical dimensions of fatherhood, the court commented that human life is a tapestry of aspirations and challenges. “The deeply satisfactory relationships with children contribute to making life significant,” said the bank, adding that it is natural that parents of children with disabilities seek the joy and experience of raising a non -disabled child, without reducing the love and care they have for their existing children.
Referring to the decision guided by “past thoughts”, the bank emphasized the need for regulatory bodies to go beyond rigid norms and recognize the evolutionary tissue of family and human emotions. The couple had, in fact, reappear with face in September 2024 seeking exemption, but did not receive any response before their statement was ultimately rejected. Frustrated, they touch the legal route in 2025, which leads to this week’s decision.
Face will now have six weeks to reconsider the couple’s request, taking into account the directive of the Superior Court and the broader human context of the case.
