The Allahabad High Court held that after the 1977 amendment applicable in Uttar Pradesh, an adoption can only be legally recognized through a registered adoption deed, and a mere notarized document carries no legal presumption. The Court, while deciding a custody dispute, emphasized that an unregistered adoption deed is “wholly insufficient to establish adoption before a writ court.”
The case arose from a custody battle concerning a minor child. The appellants claimed custody based on an alleged adoption, relying solely on a notarized deed. The natural guardians of the child contested this claim, asserting that there was no lawful adoption as per statutory requirements. The Single Judge had already ruled in favour of the natural guardians, rejecting the adoption claim due to absence of a registered deed. The appellants challenged this decision before the Division Bench.
The appellants argued that registration of the adoption deed should not be the sole criterion for recognizing adoption. They relied on a previous judgment wherein compassionate appointment was granted despite an unregistered adoption deed, citing Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. They contended that additional evidence should be admissible to prove adoption, even in absence of registration, and urged the Court to draw a presumption in their favour.
The Bench undertook a detailed analysis of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as amended specifically for Uttar Pradesh through the U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976. The Court categorically held that, post 1 January 1977, registration of adoption deeds is compulsory in Uttar Pradesh, leaving no scope for presumption based on notarized documents.
The Court noted, “After 01.01.1977, any adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only by way of a registered deed and not otherwise. There is nothing in the provision which could lend itself to even a remote suggestion that an unregistered deed could be relied upon to claim adoption.”
Rejecting reliance on compassionate appointment cases, the Court clarified that such precedents dealt with succession and post-retiral benefits, not enforcement of adoption in writ jurisdiction. It further clarified the limited operation of the proviso under Section 16, “Secondary evidence would be admissible only when the primary registered document existed but was unavailable. Here, the very foundation is a notarized deed, not a registered one, thus, the proviso does not assist the appellants.”
Concluding that the appellants failed to establish a valid adoption under law, the Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. It reaffirmed that no legal right, including custody, can be claimed on the basis of an unregistered adoption deed.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed for lack of merit.
Case Title: Arun And Another Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Of Home Affairs Govt. Sectt. Lko. And Others
Case No.: Special Appeal No. - 316 of 2025
Coram: Justice Rajan Roy, Justice Prashant Kumar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Prateek Tewari, Praveen Kumar Tewari
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. C.S.C., Shashank Shukla
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
