Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: 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

Latest Legal News