Maltese couple get HC nod to adopt kid from Bengaluru's KR Puram orphanage

After a couple from Malta was denied permission to adopt a one-year-old from an orphanage in KR Puram, they

moved the High Court and finally got the go-ahead to add ‘Nicholas Dhruva Schembri’ to their family of four.

The High Court allowed Joseph and Deborah Schembri to adopt the boy who lives in Shishu Mandir, KR Puram,

setting aside a lower court order that had barred from adoption on the grounds of age, income and cultural

differences. It said that the lower court had “acted illegally and with material irregularity” in the case.

The couple had filed a petition before the LVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge under the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, seeking to adopt, Dhruva. The couple has been married since 1995

and has two children, born in 1998 and 2000. Looking to add to their family, the two had obtained permission

from the Ministry of Family and Social Solidarity in Malta for adoption.

The issue reached the HC when the petition was rejected by the civil court on the grounds that the “adoption was

not in the best interest of the child” as the couple were aged 44 years each and had grown children “and that it is

a complete family; and there is no reason or necessity for them to adopt a child”.

The couple’s advocate submitted that the lower court had failed to consider their affidavits that “stated that they

undertake to bring up the child as their own son and to give him a good home and sound education and to look

after his physical, mental and moral well-being”. The home study report had stated that the couple was

financially stable and able to cope with the expenses related to maintaining a family. This was also overlooked

by the trial court, the HC was told.

As per the law, the maximum composite age of the prospective adoptive parents for a child of up to four years of

age should be 90 years. In this case, it was 88 years. Malta did not have adoption agreement with any country till

2016 and therefore the couple could not adopt any child prior to that though they were willing. The two children

of the couple had also given their consent for the adoption.

The couple, the HC was told, “know how to handle difficulties which may arise due to race, culture and ethnic

differences”. It was contended that “the circumstances when inter-country adoption would be in the welfare and

best interest of the child, it is held that inter-country adoption should be permitted when no Indian parents are

available”.

Justice L Narayana Swamy in his judgement noted that Joseph Schembri was the managing director in his own

firm (Electrofix Limited) and had an annual income of 30,138 Euros. Deborah Schembri also had an income of

23,086 Euros per year. It also noted that they were physically fit and healthy.

The child, Dhruva, was born on June 3, 2016 to an unwed mother who was not in a position to bring him up and

had handed him over to the orphanage. The Child Welfare Committee had declared that the child was legally free

for adoption and the Central Adoption Resources Authority had given a no-objection certificate for the adoption.

The HC said that the lower court’s reasons for denying the adoption was unfounded. The reasons that they had

their own biological children and they may misuse the child were not right. “The materials on record would

clearly prove the bona fide intention of the petitioners to take the minor child on adoption. The children have

given their consent for adoption and adoptive parents have also tendered their affidavit. Their source of income

is also proved,” the HC said. It said that their bona fides were unnecessarily suspected by the lower court.

.