The Allahabad High Court has brought a 41-year legal battle to a close, dismissing a writ petition while emphasizing the mandatory requirements for a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery delivered the landmark verdict, underscoring that “a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife,” a statutory precondition for legality.
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, had challenged the rejection of his claim to adoption rights based on a registered adoption deed dated May 12, 1967. However, the court found significant procedural lapses, including the absence of the adoptive mother’s signature and consent on the adoption deed—a violation of Sections 7 and 11 of the 1956 Act.
Justice Shamshery ruled, “The absence of the adoptive mother’s participation in the adoption ceremony and her failure to sign the adoption deed clearly indicates non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements. Without her consent, the adoption cannot be considered valid.”
Case History and Arguments
The petitioner contended that the adoption was carried out in accordance with due process, supported by a registered deed and witness testimony. Counsel for the petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Rai, argued that the registered deed carried a presumption of validity unless rebutted, and additional evidence, such as the biological father’s statement and a police certificate proving witness availability, supported the adoption.
However, counsel for the respondents, Advocate Saumitra Anand, countered that the adoption deed lacked crucial elements of legality. Anand pointed out that the adoptive mother did not sign the document, nor was there credible evidence of the ceremonial act of “giving and taking” the child. He emphasized that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the wife’s consent is indispensable for a male Hindu adopting a child.
The court reviewed conflicting accounts from witnesses, noting that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the burden of proof. Justice Shamshery observed that photographic evidence purportedly documenting the ceremony was inconclusive, as key individuals, including the adoptive mother, were not visible or identifiable.
Court’s Ruling
In its ruling, the court upheld the Board of Revenue’s findings, which had invalidated the adoption due to the lack of the adoptive mother’s consent and the failure to conclusively establish the ceremony of adoption. The judgment cited precedents from the Supreme Court that highlight the strict requirements for proving adoption, especially when it alters the natural course of succession.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Shamshery expressed regret over the prolonged litigation, stating, “The court extends an apology to the litigants as this case has been pending for more than four decades.”
