Arvind Janardan Devsthali vs Devanand Ramkrishna Gore
2021 Latest Caselaw 3870 Bom

                                                                           (14) CRA-17-21.doc

BDP-SPS

 Bharat
 D.

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 Pandit
 Digitally signed
 by Bharat D.
 Pandit
 Date:




                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 2021.03.06
 15:07:24 +0530




                                 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2021

                    Arvind Janardan Devsthali and Anr          ...Applicants.
                             V/s
                    Devanand Ramkrishna Gore and Ors.          ....Respondents
                    ---
                    Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Amit
                    Jamsandekar i/b Prabhakar Jadhav for the Applicants.
                    Mr. Vijay D. Patil a/w Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade for Respondent Nos.1
                    and 2.
                    Mr. Vighnesh Kamat a/w Mr. Veerdhaval Kakade for Respondent No.3.
                    -----
                                      CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                                         DATE:    MARCH 3, 2021

                    P.C.:-


                    1]       Untimely death of parents of Applicant No.2 prompted him to

be in the custody of one Arvind Janardan Devsthali.

2] Applicant No.1 - Arvind happens to be real uncle of Applicant

No.2, whereas Non-applicant No.2 is a wife of Non-applicant No.1.

Non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, an issue-less couple, had an intention to

adopt Applicant No.2. As such, proceedings were taken out before the

learned District Judge, Oros seeking permission of the Court under

Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, which is

(14) CRA-17-21.doc

rejected by the order impugned dated 15/1/2021.

3] The submission of Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, learned Senior

Counsel is, though the Court below has observed that Applicant No.2

who is a major and also a married person can be given in adoption in

view of prevalent custom in Sindhudurg District, while misreading the

provisions of Section 9, particularly Explanation to Section 9, it erred

in holding that Applicant No.1 cannot be termed as guardian

thereunder. According to him, the view expressed by the learned

District Judge is contrary to very scheme of the aforesaid Act.

4] In view thereof, issue notice to the Respondents for final

disposal.

5] Mr. Patil, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel, waives service

on notice on behalf of Respondent No.3.

6] All the Respondents are supporting the case of the Applicants.

(14) CRA-17-21.doc

7] In response to the Court's query, the learned Senior Counsel for

the Applicants would submit that copies of the judgments referred to

in the impugned order and other judgments which are relied upon so

as to explain the scheme of the Act shall be placed on record of this

Court within a period of two weeks from today.

8] In that view of the matter, stand over to 16/3/2021.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )