HC orders probe against childless Tardeo couple who ‘purchased’ infant

The couple contended that the child is now one-and-half years old and they have cared for him right from the time he was an infant.

The Bombay high court on Friday directed the Tardeo police station to produce investigation papers related to a case involving a local childless couple booked for allegedly ‘purchasing’ an infant from a Children’s Home at Nanded after paying Rs1.90 lakh.

The trio told the high court that they paid Rs1.90 not for “purchasing” the child, but partly towards charges of the Children’s Home and partly to meet the legal fees required to complete the adoption process. (HT File Photo)

The division bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Amjad Sayed posted the application filed by Mahesh Pawar, his wife and sister seeking to quash the offence registered against them under section 370(1) of the Indian Penal Code.

Pawar’s plea stated that he married 13 years ago and was looking to adopt a child. A friend told him he could adopt a child at Nanded and gave him the name of a woman working at the Sunita Gutti Children’s Home there.

In June 2014, Pawar went to Nanded and contacted the woman. She asked for Rs1.90 lakh. Pawar paid her and was given a 10-day old infant, states his plea.

In December 2015, the Tardeo police registered an offence against Pawar, his wife and sister after they received information that the trio illegally purchased a child without the requisite adoption formalities.

The trio told the high court that they paid Rs1.90 not for “purchasing” the child, but partly towards charges of the Children’s Home and partly to meet the legal fees required to complete the adoption process. According to their plea, Pawar paid Rs45,000 to the Children’s Home to meet legal expenses incurred while completing the adoption process.

They contended that the child is now one-and-half years old and they have cared for him right from the time he was an infant.

On Friday, when the plea came up for hearing, the judges sought to know what action the police had taken against the home and its functionaries. An assistant public prosecutor informed the judges that a functionary of the home has been roped in as a co-accused in the case. The judges felt that was not enough.