Case – Brijendra v. State of M.P., 2008
Fact – A crippled disabled lady was married because under the village custom it was imperative for a virgin girl to get married; the husband left her immediately after the marriage which was not even consummated; she adopted a son (the appellant) after 22 years of the so-called marriage so that she has someone by her side to look after her, and which he did. In view of some disputes under the agricultural land ceiling law, she sought a declaration that the appellant was her adopted son.
The suit was decreed by the trial court and affirmed by the first appellate court. On second appeal to the High Court (Madhya Pradesh) it was held that in view of the provisions of section 8(c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adoption was not valid.
Issue – Whether this adoption is a valid adoption under HAMA, 1956?
Contentions and Judgement:
Section 8 of the Act reads as follows: “Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption – Any female Hindu – (a) who is of sound mind, (b) who is not minor, and (c) who is not married, or if married, whose marriage has been dissolved or whose husband is dead or has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind, has capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption.
The argument that she was leading life like a divorced woman was not accepted. “There was a great deal of difference between a female Hindu who is divorced and one who is leading life like a divorced woman”, the court observed.
It was held that in view of the provisions of section 8 (c) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, under which a married female can adopt only after divorce, or her husband is dead, or has renounced the world, or has been declared by a court to be of unsound mind, the adoption was not valid.
The argument that her husband never lived with her, the marriage was not even consummated and she was leading life like a divorced woman was held to be not tenable.
The declaration sought for was refused because she was not legally competent to adopt, even while the court conceded that the case “projects some highly emotional and sensitive aspects of human life”.
It was submitted that in view of the peculiar background, the Government may be directed to consider the appellant’s case for allotment of the land from the surplus land so that the purpose for which adoption was made and the fact that the appellant nourished a crippled lady treating her to be his own mother would set a healthy tradition and example. We express no opinion in that regard. It is for the State Government to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law
