MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

Latest Legal News