Related Stories THE RAINMAKERSTHE SOLITITUDE OF A KINGTHE CURE WITHIN THE CELLWRITING ON THE WALLSIMI'S SECOND COMING

THE CASE

It was on February 18, 2004 that two-year-old Prateek (later named Lakshya) went missing. His mother Babita, after an argument with her husband Dinesh, had gone to live with her mother, leaving Prateek behind. In an attempt to reconcile the married couple, Dinesh’s sister, Shashi Sharma, took Prateek to Babita. At the house, once Shashi spotted Prateek’s grandmother, she left him at the gate. The grandmother, thinking Prateek had left with the aunt, returned inside. Only 20 days later, when Dinesh and Babita reached a compromise and renewed communication, did they realise their son was not in the care of either parent.

Found roaming alone that same day on Shukra Bazar Road, Matiala, Prateek was picked up by a police officer and taken to Matiala Police Station. The whirlwind speed—42 minutes according to Dinesh’s advocate, D.D. Singhla—with which he was deposited at the Bal Vihar Orphanage Centre in Palam, without adequate checks about the child’s family, has come under attack from the court. The police’s treatment of Dinesh, when he repeatedly inquired about his son's whereabouts, has also been criticised.

On a visit to the orphanage, Anil Jindal, who provided education, healthcare and one meal a day to its children, spotted Prateek. Within 11 days, Prateek, now called Lakshya, was adopted.

An inquiry into the conduct of the police, the orphanage and the Jindals in what the court views as a highly flawed adoption is underway, the report will be submitted by May 5. In July 2004, when Dinesh first discovered Prateek was in the care of the Jindals, his demands for his son were turned down; Anil Jindal said he could not be sure of Dinesh’s paternity. The Sharmas went to the courts in October 2005.

The Jindals later argued they could provide Lakshya with a better quality of life and opportunities than his biological parents, that he was already mentally and emotionally connected to the family.

But for Singhla, who successfully won custody rights for the Sharmas, this calls for a wider debate. “Should poor and less fortunate families not have the right to retain their children? Is a child’s welfare directly connected to the wealth he grows up with? I also grew up wearing ripped clothes. I studied in a government school, and went to the Panjab University. I turned out okay.”

Ads By Google