The petition was dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to comply with the objections raised by the RPO and to resubmit her application with the correct details, inter alia, with regard to her parentage. The parties were left to bear their respe..
In the absence of evidence of valid adoption, including proof of giving and receiving, and in the view of Sabitri Bala's subsequent conduct and that of defendant No. 1, he rejected his assertion of acceptance. In the matter of his supposed adoption b..
The Bombay High Court held that both the Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff cannot be held adopted son of Kundanbai and he has been rightly denied his succession to the properties of Kundanbai...
The court held that the child can be adopted "under the authority" of the parents. The adoptive mother had executed a valid Power of Attorney authorising her attorney to take the petitioner in adoption on her behalf...
The Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave petition filed by the husband and observed that For the last two decades, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the explanation referred to in subsection (1) thereof, has been consisten..
The Court declared the appeal to be failed and dismissed it. There was no order as to costs. The court further mentioned that once the judgment was properly understood there was no charter for inference by the High Courts with findings of facts recor..
The court held that, prima facie, Nirmala does not appear to have been adopted by Obalappa which is evident from the deed of gift executed by him. Even in the transfer deed executed by Kadarappa, Nirmala was described as a foster daughter of Obalappa..
The Supreme Court held that the State needs to make sure that the JJ Act is implemented in a proper manner in order to cater to the needs of the children in the society...
When considering all the matters in-depth, the court noted that Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, permits the adoption of a Hindu child alone by a Hindu. The law does not accept the adoption of any person other than a Hindu b..
It was held by the court that in cases where a child was adopted, the effect of adoption is such that it creates a legal fiction and the child becomes the natural heir. Where an adoption is such that it relates back and makes him eligible for all the..
The judgment of Shabnam Hashmi provided the adoption as the Fundamental Right. It was permitted that any person irrespective of religion can adopt a child under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. s..
The adoption of Deep Chand was challenged as fictitious and ineffective. It was further urged that even if the adoption was valid, Deep Chand became the adopted son of Smt. Bhagwani and could not succeed to the properties of Ramji Dass. The appellant..
In the facts of the present case, we are dealing with a situation where the marriage between the parties has been proved. However, the petitioner was already married. But he duped the respondent by suppressing the factum of alleged first marriage. On..
The Court discussed Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of HAMA and then carefully gave the judgment. It held that the scheme of HAMA is not to make a child of 15 years of age or above fir to be taken in adoption. The exception however is made in favour of custo..
The Court held that the appeal had filed and was thus dismissed. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, there was no order as to costs...
The court noted that without the mother's permission, the father cannot give in adoption. There was no conformity with either Section'7 'or Section'9' and thus, as the petitioner pleaded, there was no adoption...
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the occurrence of offence no matter the offence committed by him is heinous and as such he is entitled to the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2..
The court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married, even if she is not physically or mentally injured. The court relied on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, provided ..
The court held that the age difference between adoptive mother and adoptive son to be at least 21 years is mandatory in nature..
The Apex Court observed that the view of the High Court that Sections 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code are mutually exclusive is not correct. Sections 304-Band 498-A cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
