In one of its recent judgement delivered, the Supreme Court of India has cemented the provision established in Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, which makes consent of the wife of the adopter essential for a valid adoption.
The Court delivered the verdict in one case titled as M. Vanaja vs. M. Sarla Devi.
CASE BACKGROUND
The petitioner herein claimed that she is the adopted daughter of the respondent and her Late Husband. When she claimed her rights in the property belonging to her father though she was denied the same. She sought for the partition of the Civil Sit schedule property.
In the suit so filed, she asserted that she was brought up as the daughter of the Respondent and her Late Husband. Their name ran as her parents in the school and college documents and even in the government records like ration card, etc..
It was submitted by her that on the basis of the above she was entitled to a half share of his properties.
The respondent on the other stated the facts before the Court that though the petitioner was brought by her and her late-husband there was no official adoption. They took care of her as her own daughter but she was not the one legally.
The Civil Court in the hearing of the case rested the case in favour of the respondent herein. The Court relied on the Sections 7 and 11 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1956’) and held that the petitioner herein couldn't prove the ceremony of adoption.
The High Court upheld the judgement of the Civil Court when challenged before it stating that there was no other evidence to show that the actual adoption took place in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act of 1956.
Aggrieved, the petitioner then brought her case before the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS
The Learned Counsel of the petitioner submitted that it was not possible for the petitioner to prove the manner in which the adoption took place as she was very young at that time. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in L. Debi Prasad (Dead) by Lrs. v. Smt. Tribeni Devi & Ors. to argue that the subsequent events can be taken into account for the purpose of proving
Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged that the mandatory requirement of proving the factum of adoption under Sections 7 and 11 of the Act of 1956 has not been complied with by the Appellant.
The Top Court after listening to the submissions made and taking in the view of the evidence produced noted that the petitioner had admitted in her evidence that she didn't have the proof of the ceremony of giving and taking of her in adoption and there is no pleading in the plaint regarding the adoption being in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It further said that the respondent had clearly stated that the petitioner was never formally adopted by her and her Late Husband.
The Court thus referred to the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, categorically highlighting Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Act.
It said:
The mandate of the Act of 1956 is that no adoption shall be valid unless it has been made in compliance with the conditions mentioned in Chapter I of the Act of 1956. The two essential conditions i.e. the consent of the wife and the actual ceremony of adoption have not been established. This Court by its judgment in Ghisalal v. Dhapubai (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. held that the consent of the wife is mandatory for proving adoption.
The Bench also rejected the submission of the petitioner's Counsel. It held:
The Counsels in the case were Advocates Kedar Nath Tripathy and T.V. Ratnam
The Judgement was delivered by Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Deepak Gupta on 06-03-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :
Picture Source :

