Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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