Mere Pendency of Appeal Does Not Bar Eviction Suit – Res Judicata Not Attracted Where Issues Are Not Identical: Andhra Pradesh High Court Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right under Article 21: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Despite Recovery of Commercial Quantity Encroachments on River Puramboke Cannot Be Legalised or Protected Under the Guise of Long President was deemed to know that the property vested with the Municipal Council, yet failed to protect it: Karnataka High Court Upholds Disqualification of Municipal President for Misconduct Once the Term of Committee Ends, Right to Vote Ceases — Even if Name Remains in Voter List: Gujarat High Court Treating Equals Unequally Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court Strikes Down IOCL's Tiebreaker rule Preferring Younger Candidate in Tender Selection Mere Harassment Over Loan Recovery Not Abetment to Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in Vineet Kundu Case Taxpayer Cannot Be Penalized For Department's Mistake In Deposit Of GST — Allahabad High Court Directs NOIDA To Compensate The Taxpayer For Wrongful Imposition Of Tax And Penalty “When Large-Scale Fraud Vitiates Selection, En Masse Cancellation Is Inevitable: Supreme Court Validates Quashing of WBSSC 2016 Recruitment Reopening Based on Wrong Mutual Fund is No Reopening at All — Gujarat High Court Quashes Income Tax Notice for Lack of Nexus Between Allegation and Actual Transaction Exceeding Official Duty Does Not Automatically Remove Section 197 CrPC Protection: Supreme Court Quashed Proceedings Against Police Officials Possession Of A Higher Qualification Cannot Substitute The Qualification Prescribed Under  Rules: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection Of Candidate Without Required Lascar’s Licence Dismissal for Default Without Considering COVID Restrictions Was Illegal: Supreme Court Section 256 CrPC Does Not Mandate Automatic Acquittal On Complainant’s Absence — Judicial Satisfaction Is Mandatory: Supreme Court

Adoption Severs Ties with Family of Birth, Adopted Child Becomes Coparcener of Adoptive Family - Hyderabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hyderabad High Court has clarified the legal implications of adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The court, comprising Honorable Mr. Justice P. Naveen Rao, Honorable Mr. Justice B. Viaysen Reddy, and Honorable Mr. Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka, delivered a landmark judgment on 27th June 2023, providing clarity on the rights and obligations of an adopted child.

The case involved the interpretation of proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, which deals with the effect of adoption on coparcenary rights. The court examined previous conflicting opinions, analyzed authoritative legal texts such as Mayne's Hindu Law and Mulla on principles of Hindu Law, and considered relevant Supreme Court decisions to arrive at its conclusion.

The court unequivocally held that upon adoption, the child severs all ties with the family of birth and becomes a coparcener of the adoptive family. The judgment emphasized that the adopted child transplants into the adoptive family, relinquishing rights and obligations associated with the family of birth, including inheritance and the performance of rituals.

High court stated, "On adoption, the child ceases to be coparcener of the family of his/her birth and foregoes interest in the ancestral property in the family of his/her birth." The court clarified that only property already vested in the child in the family of birth would be saved by proviso (b) to Section 12. This includes property acquired through self-acquisition, will, inheritance, or as the sole surviving coparcener.

The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between unspecified coparcenary interest and property already vested. It rejected the notion that an adopted child is divested of property upon adoption, criticizing the concept of adoption as civil death and a rebirth. Instead, the court affirmed that adoption is a process of transplantation into the adoptive family.

The court's ruling brings much-needed clarity to the legal status of an adopted child and the rights and obligations associated with adoption. It provides a definitive interpretation of proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, resolving conflicting opinions from various high courts.

This landmark judgment by the Hyderabad High Court is expected to have a far-reaching impact on adoption-related matters across the country. It reaffirms the legal position that adoption severs ties with the family of birth, establishing the adopted child as a coparcener of the adoptive family.

Date of Decision: 27th June 2023 

Anumolu Nageswara  vs A.V.R.L.Narasimha Rao

Similar News