Mumbai: Nearly two months after an unwed mother was made to surrender her newborn to a children's home in Byculla and hence had approached the Bombay High court, got her baby back.
A vacation bench of Justices Nitin Borkar and Somasekhar Sundaresan took note of the order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on May 29 to “release/discharge of the child to the Mother”.
Following the CWC’s order, Asha Sadan Balgruh’s advocate informed the bench that “the deed of surrender has indeed been reversed and the child has been released to the care of the mother”.
The 23-year-old mother was sexually abused by her boss in the UAE. After six months she realised that she was pregnant. She then returned to India. Because of her conservative family she hid her pregnancy from them and went to Asha Sadan for her delivery. She delivered a girl on March 29. Eventually, her family supported her.
She then asked if she could take her baby home, to which a social worker at the home made her sign a surrender deed on April 5 saying “this was the only way to get the child back.” She was informed that she has 60 days to revoke/reconsider the surrender deed.
The CWC gave her a hearing on May 2 but did not decide her application for the return of her baby. The allegations were refuted by Asha Sadan’s advocate. He said any adverse inference has potential of blemishing its track record.
The bench noted that since the petition has become infructuous, it does not mean that “allegations made against the said Respondents would be regarded as having been left unaddressed or having been ruled upon as, prima-facie, having any merit”.
The woman’s advocate had submitted that she felt “traumatised and stressed about the manner in which she has been dealt with”. The bench, however, said the allegations need not be dealt with as “the matter has worked itself out”.
“It is obvious that in such matters, emotions will run high and degree of rationality in conduct of parties would not be as would be usually expected in normal circumstances”, the judges said.
They “earnestly requested” both sides to put behind all events that have transpired and work constructively towards the child’s welfare since over the next one year there would be continuous interaction between them for various legal processes.
“The parties are requested to bring to bear, their emotional strength, to maintain an amicable interaction in this process, placing the welfare of the child at the forefront over any other adverse feelings and misgivings,” the judges underlined while disposing of the petition.
