Person Who Adopts A Child Must Have Consent Of His Wife; Allahabad High Court Ends 41-Year-Old Adopt

41-Year Legal Battle Ends: Allahabad High Court Emphasizes Wife's Consent in Adoption

 

The Allahabad High Court has finally concluded a 41-year-long legal battle, dismissing a writ petition while underscoring the mandatory legal requirements for adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery delivered the landmark verdict, emphasizing that a husband's adoption of a child is invalid without his wife’s consent—a statutory precondition.

 

The case involved Ashok Kumar, who challenged the rejection of his adoption claim based on a registered deed dated May 12, 1967. However, the court found glaring procedural lapses, notably the absence of the adoptive mother's signature and consent on the adoption deed, violating Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

 

Justice Shamshery stated, “The absence of the adoptive mother's participation in the adoption ceremony and her failure to sign the adoption deed clearly indicates non-compliance with mandatory legal requirements. Without her consent, the adoption cannot be considered valid.”

 

Arguments and Findings

 

Ashok Kumar's counsel argued that the adoption followed due process, supported by a registered deed and witness testimony. However, the respondents countered that the deed lacked essential legal elements. They highlighted that the adoptive mother neither signed the document nor participated in the ceremony—a fundamental breach of the law.

 

The court reviewed conflicting witness testimonies and inconclusive photographic evidence. Justice Shamshery noted the failure to meet the burden of proof, as key figures, including the adoptive mother, were not identifiable in the purported ceremony documentation.

 

Verdict and Reflection

 

Upholding the findings of the Board of Revenue, the court invalidated the adoption, citing the lack of the wife’s consent and failure to conclusively establish the ceremonial "giving and taking" of the child. Justice Shamshery referenced Supreme Court precedents that stress strict compliance with adoption laws, especially when succession rights are impacted.

 

Expressing regret over the prolonged litigation, Justice Shamshery remarked, “The court extends an apology to the litigants as this case has been pending for more than four decades.”

 

This judgment reaffirms the sanctity of the legal process in adoption and the critical role of a wife's consent, bringing clarity to an area often mired in procedural ambiguity.