In a recent ruling on 20th November 2023, the Supreme Court challenged the conventional belief that the mere registration of an Adoption Deed is sufficient proof of adoption. The court emphasized the necessity for individuals asserting adoption and those contesting it to provide substantial evidence beyond the formal documentation.
The case in question involved a 70-year-old woman who, just two months before her demise, allegedly adopted a child less than a year old. The adopted individual claimed inheritance through a registered will, contending that all the properties had been bequeathed to him.
The Apex Court, upon meticulous examination of the circumstances, deemed the adoption questionable due to a myriad of suspicious elements. The court questioned the believability of a woman of advanced age willingly taking on the responsibility of caring for an infant.
Highlighting the clandestine nature of the alleged adoption ceremony, the court expressed doubts that remained inadequately explained. Typically, adoptions are celebratory events, and the court noted that the secrecy surrounding this adoption raised concerns.
Despite the registration of the Adoption Deed and the presumption established by Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the court underscored that this presumption is rebuttable. The absence of evidence regarding strained relations between the adoptive woman and her grandson, who contested the adoption, played a pivotal role in the court’s decision.
The court also emphasized the essential requirement of the ‘giving and taking’ of the child in adoption, as outlined in Section 11(vi) of the 1956 Act. In this case, the court found a lack of convincing evidence for this crucial act.
The Adoption Deed’s provision that the adoptive child would perform annual ceremonies for the ancestors was deemed implausible, considering the vast age difference between the adoptive mother and the child.
In its final verdict, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant failed to prove the adoption in accordance with the law, rendering him ineligible to claim any rights or share in the properties. The court deemed the adoption, despite its registration, not credible due to numerous suspicious circumstances.
Furthermore, the court asserted that the registered will also lacked proper validation in accordance with the law and did not confer any rights to the appellant.
This landmark ruling, encapsulated in Moturu Nalini Kanth V. Gainedi Kaliprasad, CIVIL APPEAL No. 2435 of 2010, challenges the conventional understanding of adoption proceedings and underscores the need for irrefutable evidence beyond mere documentation.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
