Rights of Child Born Out of a Live-in Relationship

Rights of Child Born Out of a Live-in Relationship: An analysis of Kerala High Court Judgment, from the perspective of Child Rights

The Judgment on the status of child out of living relationship is a welcome decision. There are, but certain questions that remain to be countered. The question marks are on the following:

1. 1. Whether the order safeguards the best interest of the child?
   2. Whether the judgment would not further encourage abandonment of a newly born child, especially born out of live-in relationship?
   3. Whether the judgment does not defend the rights of a disinterested biological father over the best interest of the child?
   4. Whether a person who fails to take the responsibility of marriage can effectively take the responsibility of an outcome of such marriage like relationship?
   5. Whether the Hon’ble Court has thought about the trauma being faced by the child and that of Adoptive parents?
   6. Whether the Hon’ble Court has thought about the parental alienation the child would face after being restored to biological father?
   7. Was it not the responsibility of the father to participate in the proceedings before the CWC?
   8. Was it not the responsibility of the biological mother to inform the biological father about the proceedings of surrender of the child ultimately culminating into adoption of the child?
   9. Is it not imperative that presence of the biological father is needed during the two months period of counselling and rethinking on surrendering, so that the child remains in biological family?
   10. Has the Hon’ble High Court considered the reasons for surrender of the child, at length, children born out of living are being looked after by their mother?
   11. Was it not the responsibility of the CWC and DCPU to contact the biological father, during the proceedings before the CWC, when the name of the biological father was already disclosed on the documents?
   12. Has the Hon’ble Kerala High Court established a new’ ratio’?
   13. Are our CWCs really competent to deal such cases which to my mind are not so complex but required patience, application of cool mind and may be a little bit of legal help?
   14. It is not clear that who filed the Habeas Corpus petition, which was converted into a Revision petition, Suo motu.
   15. The Hon’ble High Court failed to take notice of the fact whether it was a collusive petition between both the parties, to bargain with adoptive parents, this is a very common phenomenon, I am sure most of the child rights activists have encountered such cases?
   16. How and why the father popped up only after the order for adoption has been passed by appropriate authority?
   17. What was the fault of the adoptive parents in this case?
   18. Is it not a fact that the adoptive parents were not given a hearing in the process of passing an order which is going to affect them adversely?
   19. Does the judgment fail to the touchstone of “Natural Justice”?
   20. Can adoption order be reversed because of procedural error and the error crept in because of a person’s irresponsible behaviour?
   21. Can a person be given advantage of ‘Ignorance of Law’?

At present, I am placing these questions for open discussion on this blog. I would greatly appreciate your views and versions. The judgment is available on the website.