Adoption, when believed. (A) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Section 9—Testamentary Guardians and their powers—Suit for declaration that plaintiff have become the guardian and parent of the respondent no.2—And seeking consequential relief to reflect name of appellant no.1 as father of the respondent no.2 in the official document viz. birth certificate, Aadhar Card, Educational Certificate of degree and other such official documents—The learned Judge without appreciating the merits of the case in light of the legal position as relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellant has proceeded to dismiss the application by impugned judgment and order dated 27.6.2023—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellants have approached this Court by way of present appeal under&n...

Adoption of children, procedure. (A) Registration Act, Section 21-A—Registration of Adoption Deed—Not conferring any Rights—Sub-Registrars are directed, not to register a document, which will not confer any rights—Registration of the adoption deed will be a futile exercise, since it has no legal sanctity under any law—Therefore, the registration of the adoption deed does not arise before any of the registering authorities. (Paras 17, 18) (B) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 68—Adoption Regulations, 2017—Adoption of child between relatives—Writ petition to direct registration of Adoption deed is dismissed—petitioners are at liberty to invoke the regulations as contemplated.  (Para 18) Result :- Petition dismissed. ...

...

(A)  Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 7—Adoption—The consent of wife is presumed by the trial court—Relying solely on the wife's presence at the adoption ceremony to infer her consent is erroneous—This constitutes a perverse interpretation, and the impugned order is hereby quashed—Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. (Para 18 to 20) (B)  Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 7—Constitution of India, 1949—Article 226—Adoption procedure—Prior consent of wife—Necessity of—Held, in Hindu law, a male Hindu cannot adopt without the consent of his living wife, unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be Hindu, or been declared of unsound mind by a court—The wife's consent must be obtained before the act o...

Adoption—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Second Appeal—Substantial question of law involved in—Determination of—First Appellate Court has failed to consider any of these aspects and only on basis of Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act in view of certified copy of adoption deed, accepted it as gospel truth without appreciating and without considering fact that 'M' did not whisper regarding adoption in his plaint itself—Though adoption is said to have taken place 7 years earlier to filing suit—First Appellate Court has erroneously decreed the suit by reversing judgment and decree of trial Court—Substantial question of law is not properly framed—But substantial question of law in favour of appellant—Appeal allowed. (Paras 23, 25 and 26) ...

Partition—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 12—Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 4—Suit for partition—'N' was adopted son—Instituted suit—Claiming right over plaint schedule properties—Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are step sisters—Suit decreed—In appeal there was compromise—Step sisters instituted suit on strength of said compromise—Suit decreed finally—Second Appeal—High Court has found that in view of adoption made of a son by widow, the mother of plaintiff and first defendant, adoption would relate back to time of father—Doctrine of relation back being applied—It is also found by High Court that case of plaintiff that she was in joint possession of plaint schedule properties did not inspire confidence of Court—V...

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act,1956, Section 7—Adoption under—Consent of wife— Necessity of—Whether the words "If he has a wife living" occurring in the proviso to Section 7 ofAct, include an estranged wife living apart from her husband, but not divorced ?—Held, Yes—A wife living apart from the husband, utterly estranged, is still a wife, until the marital bond between the parties is severed by a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage—Even a judicial separation would not put an end to the husband's obligation under the proviso to Section 7 of Act—The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity—The petition fails and stands dismissed. (Para 21,26, 27)...

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 11(vi)—Adoption—Validity—Necessity of “Giving and Taking” Ceremony—Compromise Decree Insufficiency: In this second appeal, the appellant-defendant challenged the lower courts' rejection of his status as the adopted son of Shivagangavva, which impacted his inheritance rights—Both the Trial and First Appellate Courts found the appellant's adoption claim invalid, noting the absence of the essential "giving and taking" ceremony mandated under Section 11(vi) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—The appellant relied on a compromise decree (O.S.No.124/1992) to support his claim; however, the courts held that the decree alone did not fulfill statutory requirements—The lack of a formal adoption deed and the ap...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 100—Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 3,—Hindu Law—Adoption—Proof by customary law—Karnataka High Court's judgment that dismissed a Second Appeal by the appellants (defendants) in a suit filed by the respondent (plaintiff)—The High Court rejected the appellants' claim that defendant No. 1 was the adopted son of Fakirappa, the propositus—The court granted relief for property at item No. 3, ruling it as self-acquired by defendant No. 1—The plaintiff asserted her right to half share in the ancestral properties, claiming to be Fakirappa's daughter through the second wife—Defendant No. 1 contended valid adoption, supported by a registered deed—The trial court upheld the adoption, but the First Appellate A...

Family Courts Act, 1984—Section 19(1)—Guardians and Wards Act, 1890—Section 10, Section 47,—Adoption—Appeal revolves around permitting appellant no.1, an organization advocating abandoned children's welfare, to facilitate the adoption of a child named Sahiti, aged around five years, by appellant nos. 2 and 3—The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal against the rejection of adoption by the Family Court, citing concerns over the authenticity of documents and lack of genuine efforts for in-country adoption—The Supreme Court emphasizes the importance of child welfare, urging scrutiny of organizations involved in adoption to prevent child trafficking—The Court underscores the duty of the state to ensure abandoned children's safety and suggests exploring domestic adoption options...

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 12, Section 13—Adoption—Doctrine of relation back, while not absolute, carries limitations, particularly concerning lawful alienations made by the last absolute owner—In this Full Bench consideration, the contention revolves around whether an adopted son, adopted after the death of a collateral relative, can divest property inherited by the collateral's heir—The key question is the effect of adoption, which, for certain purposes, relates back to the adoptive father's death—The argument emphasizes that the timing of the adopted son's existence at the collateral's death is immaterial in determining the impact of adoption on vested property rights. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Order 20 Rule 12—Validity of adoption by one Hindu widow without consulting co-widow—Court's analysis of legislative intent—Parliament's deliberate omission to mandate co-widow's consent—Emphasis on empowering Hindu females to adopt independently—Recognition of modern equality principles—Abolishment of outdated requirements from old Hindu Law—Court rejects reading proviso to Section 7 into Section 8—Upholding legality of adoption without co-widow's consent—Court cautions against judicial legislation, emphasizing adherence to statutory provisions and legislative intent in line with evolving societal norms—Case law analysis highlighting the evolution of adoption rights for Hindu females and the abandonment of obsolete legal req...

Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 14—Himachal Pradesh High Court, seeking parity in pay scale and redefinition of posts with employees of the Punjab & Haryana High Court—The High Court directed the State Government to approve the redefinition and equation of posts, following a precedent of the Punjab & Haryana High Court—The Supreme Court, however, held that Himachal Pradesh is not bound to follow the rules of another state, emphasizing the independent governance of each state under the Constitution—The Court noted that recommendations of the Chief Justice should be given due deference, and while the State Government is not bound, it should consider and decide promptly—The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment, with parties bearing their own costs. ...

...

Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956—Section 10—Adoption—High Court upholds appeal, recognizing validity of adoption despite adopted child being over 15 years old. Custom in Bombay State allows adoption regardless of age, as established by judicial precedent and supported by various decisions, including Anirudh Jageorao Vs. Babarao Irbaji—Adoption deemed legal if factum established, irrespective of child's age—Custom judicially recognized in Bombay State prevails, eliminating need for independent proof—Evidence of two adoptions above 15 years post-Act further strengthens case—High Court dismisses appeal, citing well-settled legal position—No costs awarded. ...

Adoption—Alleged adoption of Gokulananda Panda by Rahasa Pandiani in 1956—The trial court dismissed the suit, finding insufficient evidence of adoption, a decision upheld by the High Court—However, the Supreme Court, after careful consideration, reinstated the trial court's judgment—Several significant circumstances cast doubt on the genuineness of the adoption claim, including the absence of a registered adoption document, lack of reliable evidence of Gokulananda living with Rahasa, and failure to examine key witnesses present at the alleged adoption ceremony—The Court emphasized the need for adoption evidence to be beyond reproach, especially when diverting succession rights, and noted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the claim—Ultimately, the Court found the plaintiff's evidence lacki...

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890—Sections 7, 8—It is essential to ensure necessary safeguards by appointing a scrutinizing agency that is not involved in the placement of children for adoption—The scrutinizing agency must be an expert body with substantial experience in child welfare to guarantee an objective and impartial evaluation—The court emphasized that agencies or institutions engaged in the placement of children for adoption should not be appointed as scrutinizing agencies—This separation ensures that the assessment remains unbiased and focused solely on the child's best interests without any conflict of interest—Therefore, to maintain the integrity and impartiality of the adoption process, it is crucial to appoint a scrutinizing agency that is entirely independent of any adoption placement act...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 15, Article 15(3), Article 2, Article 24—Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, laid down procedural safeguards for inter-country adoptions—It mandated that applications from foreigners seeking to adopt must be sponsored by recognized social or child welfare agencies from their country of residence—Direct applications to Indian agencies or institutions were barred to ensure scrutiny of prospective parents' suitability and their capability to manage cross-cultural challenges—The Court highlighted the absence of foreign supervision agencies in such cases, stressing the need for ensuring the child's well-being post-adoption—Direct decisions by biological parents on adoption were restricted until three months post-childbirth to prevent premature choices—The Governme...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 132—Adoption—Custom of Dravidas—A Hindu widow's power to adopt is exercised as a representative of her husband, and while her discretion to adopt is absolute and cannot be compelled, the consent of sapindas serves as a safeguard against misuse—The widow's discretion is subject to the authority given by her husband or the assent of sapindas, who act in a fiduciary capacity—The consent of sapindas is not a religious act but a protective measure, ensuring the adoption is done properly and in good faith—Even a non-believer in Hindu rituals remains a Hindu, and their consent is valid if they can impartially judge the advisability of the adoption—Sapindas must exercise their power without personal interest, focusing on whether the adoption fulfills relig...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Order 26 Rule 13. Partition suit, the trial judge directed the Commissioner to submit proposals for partition and to ascertain the property available for partition, including joint family liabilities. Such authorization to the Commissioner does not amount to abdication of the court's judicial functions. The court retains the role of adjudicating on the proposals submitted by the Commissioner, based on the decree and parties' contentions. The Commissioner’s proposals are not binding and serve only as a basis for further judicial examination. Additionally, under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14, a widow's possession of property in a partition suit is deemed to be the property in her possession as per the preliminary decree. Furthermore, the right of a Jain widow to adopt wi...

Constitution of India, 1950—Article 133—Tungabai, can divest the appellants of properties inherited from his adoptive father’s family—Bandegouda, Dhruvraj’s biological father, predeceased his father Narasappagouda—After Bandegouda’s death, his widow Tungabai adopted Dhruvraj—Narasappagouda’s property, inherited by his daughter Krishnabai and later by her descendants, was contested—The High Court ruled that Krishnabai's alienation of her share to Vasappa was invalid and that Dhruvraj, as an adopted son, could claim the property—Referencing Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango and Anant Bhikappa Patil, the Court held that adoption relates back to the adoptive father's death, thus entitling Dhruvraj to claim the property from the appellants—The principle of relation back d...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 13—The validity of an adoption made by Nathu, a Jat of Ludhiana, who adopted Inder Singh on March 24, 1946—Nathu's adoption was declared before the village Panchayat and formalized by a registered deed, which he later canceled on September 6, 1946—The trial court found the adoption invalid due to lack of continuous association—The District Judge upheld the adoption, but the High Court reversed this, emphasizing that both a formal declaration and ongoing treatment as a son are required—The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, confirming that the brief period of cohabitation and subsequent repudiation by Nathu did not meet the customary requirement of continuous treatment as a valid adoption—The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. ...

The validity of an adoption under Hindu law, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Judicial Commissioner at Ajmer, affirming the District Judge's ruling and overturning the Subordinate Judge's decree—The dispute centered around the adoption of Lakshman Singh by Moti Singh—Despite the plaintiff's claim of adoption in 1923, evidence revealed that no formal ceremony of "giving and taking" occurred—The Court emphasized that Hindu law requires a specific ceremony where the child is physically handed over from the natural father to the adoptive father—The mere intention to adopt, or the informal act of sending the child with a third party, does not fulfill the legal requirements for a valid adoption—The judgment reinforces that adoption must adhere to the prescribed formalities, rejecti...

...

Evidence Act, 1872—Section 13, Section 40—Matters of adoption and property claims, the doctrine of relation back applies primarily to the estate of the adoptive father, not to property inherited from collateral relatives—The principle of relation back asserts that an adopted son is entitled to the property of the adoptive father as if he had been born to him, but this only pertains to the father’s estate, whether definite or fluctuating—Applying this doctrine to property inherited from collateral can lead to unjust outcomes, as it risks disrupting the rights of subsequent purchasers and holders—Such claims could invalidate transactions made long after the adoptive father's death, resulting in highly inconvenient consequences—Consequently, the law restricts the relation back principle to ensure...