SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Does Not Envisage Agreement To Adopt 'Unborn Child' in the Act of Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:15.6.2022

 

In a case involving the adoption of an unborn child, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 does not contain a provision that would give effect to adoption of an unborn child.

 

The bench comprised of Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the natural mother of a newborn baby boy to have him released from the custody of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who had requested his adoption before he was even born.

 

After the birth of the child, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 abducted him, having allegedly coerced the petitioner-mother and her husband into signing a consent form.

The court noted that the petitioner is the child's biological mother and natural guardian. In addition, the adoption is invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956. According to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956, the court further noted that there is no registered document regarding the factum of adoption.

It is argued that the petitioner is the natural mother and natural guardian of the child, that there is no valid adoption in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (abbreviated "the Act"), and that there is no registered document pertaining to the adoption in accordance with Section 16 of the Act.

The validity of the fact that the petitioner is the baby boy's biological mother is not contested by the respondents, and there is no adoption agreement on file, the court added.

The court determined that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 does not permit adoptions of unborn children. Consequently, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 cannot claim legal custody of the minor in question.

In light of the foregoing, the court granted the mother's writ petition and ordered the respondents to immediately transfer custody of the child to her.

Regarding the petitioner and her husband's adoption claim, it also granted respondent Nos. 4 and 5 permission to enforce any agreement they have against the petitioner and her husband in an appropriate court of law.

Pooja Rani

versus.

State of Punjab and Others

 

Latest Legal News