“Adoption” means the process through which the adopted child is permanently separated from his biological parents and becomes the legitimate child of his adoptive parents with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to the relationship. The dictionary meaning of the term ‘adoption’ is the act of taking and rearing of the child of other’s parents as one’s own child. Attitudes and laws regarding adoption vary greatly.
Adopting a child in India a few decades back was something that couldn’t even be Imagined. After all, It was a question of acquiring a right to nourish and cherish the fruit grown by somebody else and our society did not permit any relation which wasn’t out of blood. But times have changed and we have seen a paradigm shift in people’ attitude towards raising a child. Kudos to some of the daring parents who started the trend and went on with it in spite of facing a strong opposition by the society. Legally speaking, except for adoption by Hindus, Indian law has no provision for adoption.
Children are placed under guardianship of adopting parents to exit the country, and adoption must take place in the parents’ mom country. But the more important aspect is whether we as a society have accepted adoption or not! Well, the answers can be contemplated In various ways. To a section of our society, it has been received as good news and is practiced by many people who aren’t blessed biologically by the almighty. Perhaps, some people are taking this option otherwise too. It is for this reason that adoption agencies have become a good business venture and Is flourishing In the urban parts of India.
Encouragement by friends and family is also a factor in inclining a couple to take this option of raising a child that does not have their genes. But such is not the case in majority sections of our country. Some of us still think that children are a miracle of god and If somebody has been deprived of It biologically, he has no right to acquire It otherwise. It is even condemned as a sin in some of the societies and is considered to be equivalent to snatching or stealing the property of somebody else. Only more grave!
On the other side of the coin, sometimes people are also hesitant in taking this step as they are afraid to swim against the tide. In early 17th Century Attack-minims by And-Bandit was considered to be the lassie work on the topic of Adoption and subsequently used by the British renowned work Attack-Kandahar is attributed to Severe. The main points, according to the Attack-Kandahar, are as follows: there are two motives in adopting a son; biz. (I) to perform obsequies rites is honor of the adoptive father and his ancestors, (it) to be the successor of the adoptive father.
Any sonless man may adopt a son; ‘sonless’ implies the absence of son, grandson and great-grandson. Except for a Sutra, one cannot adopt a daughter’s son or a sister’s son. A person’s single son cannot be given in adoption. A woman cannot give away a son without the permission of her living husband. If the husband is dead, she can do so in the absence of prohibition by the husband. An adopted son is placed on equal footing with a natural son. In the Commentaries and Digests, while the father’s power of giving in adoption is universally recognized, the same power is denied or doubted to the mother.
The learned writer of the Attack Minas quotes the following text of Sauna, “By one having an only son the gift of a son should not be made; by one having many Sons the gift of a son should anxiously be made, and moments since the masculine gender is used in the compound word ‘by one having many Sons’ the gift of a son, by a woman is prohibited” But on the basis of the text of Visigoths except with the assent of her husband he admits that the mother can give her child in adoption with the assent of her husband curiously enough, And Bandit denies the power of taking in adoption to a widow, but gives the power of giving in adoption to a widow and maintains that in such cases assent must be presumed in as much as Vided instances indicate the legality of such gifts and in as such as several texts of sages recognizes independent power of the mother to give in adoption.
Then, referring to text to Manna, Badminton , Wakefully and Vistas he laid down the following three propositions: (I) The competency of both parents united is the principal; (ii) That of the father alone independently of the mother is the mediocre, and (iii)That of the mother, depending as it does on the assent of her husband, is an inferior alternative. Indian culture has its distinctive paradoxes. Indian mythology is full of stories where babies were born in one place and brought up elsewhere by non parents. The tenets of Hindu Law clearly state that 12 kinds of sons were recognized and one of them was the Attack son, I. E, a son whom his father or mother gives as a son affectionately in a time of distress to one who is of the same caste. Some of the prominent examples are Goddess Sits from Ramadan and Lord Krishna from Inhabitant. Other characters from those days are Dana Veer Koran and Smalltalk.
These characters and admired even defied within the same tradition, childless women are some time treated with contempt or petty and denied certain ritual roles, especially in the upper caste groups. A tress memory of this attitude still engineers in the collective unconscious of our people. It is often quoted as a narrative in which there is total acceptance of the notion that an adoptive mother can love and care for non offspring also establishes the reciprocation of the love by the child. The fact that Krishna is referred as Hogshead Andean appears very crucial to the notion of INDIAN LEGAL POSITION: ere Constitution of India gives paramount consideration to the welfare of the Children. Clause (3) of Article 15 enables the State to make special provisions for Children. Article 23 prohibits the traffic in human beings and forced labor.
Article 24 provides that no child below the age of 14 yr shall be employed to work in any factory or mine or engaged in any other hazardous employment. Clause (e) and (f) of Article 39 provide that the State shall direct its policy towards securing, inter alai, that the tender age of children is not abused, that children are not forced economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age and strength and that they are given facility to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral ND material abandonment. As far as the concept of inter-country adoption is concerned, there is concrete legislation present in India. In fact before the Allegiant Pander v.
Union of Indian, it did not even have any guidelines regarding it. In the aforementioned case, the prerequisites for foreign adoption were laid down with the help of various international guidelines and subject to Indian culture framed the rules thereof. However, the legislative intent to enact a law regarding the same has been there since a long time. The adoption of Children Bill, 1972 was introduced in he Raja Saba sometime in 1972 but it was subsequently dropped, presumably because of the opposition of the Muslims stemming from the fact that it was Intended to provide for a uniform law of adoption applicable to all communities Including the Muslims.
In view of the rather strong sentiments expressed by the members of the Muslim Community and with a view not to offend their religious susceptibilities, the Adoption of Children Bill, 1980 which was introduced in the Look Saba eight years later on 16th December, 1980, contained an express provision that it shall not be applicable to Muslims. The Adoption of Children Bill 1980 has unfortunately not yet been enacted into law but it would be useful to notice some of the relevant provisions of this Bill in so far as they indicate what principles and norms the Central Government regarded as necessary to be observed for securing the welfare of children sought to be given in adoption to foreign parents and what procedural safeguards the Central Government thought, were essential for securing this end.