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 Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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