Effects of Adoption

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Family Laws > The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 > Effects of Adoption

In this article, we shall study the effects of adoption. In Dani Raiji V. Chandra Prava, 1971 Guj. 188 case, the Court held that the expression “effects of adoption” refers to all the Legal consequences flowing from an adoption.

Section 12: The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956:

Effect of adoptions-

An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.

Provided that-

(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth;

(b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth;

(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.

Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 deals with the effects of valid adoption. The main object of this section is to modify the old Hindu Law which considered “doctrine of relation back”. The Act does away with the theory of relation back and confers on the child adopted a status equivalent to that of a natural-born child in the adoptive family only from the date of adoption.

In Kesharbai Jagannath Gujar V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 Bom. 115 case, the Bombay High Court held that the adopted son is not deprived of the status given to him of a natural-born son as sec. 12 of HAMA, 1956 provides.

In Khazan Singh V. Union of India, AIR 1980 Delhi 60 the Court held that the adoptee is to be treated from the date of his adoption as if he were born in the adoptive family for all practical purposes. From that date, he has to forget that he belonged to another family except for the purposes mentioned in the section itself.

Under Section 12 on adoption, all the ties of the adopted child of the family of his birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those of the adoptive family. Under Section 12 clause (a) only tie that he retains with his natural family is that he cannot marry any person in his natural family whom he could not have married before his adoption.

Clause (b) of Section 12 interjects to protect his rights in any property which stood vested before the adoption. But it does not mean that the adoptee will continue to have some interest in the estate of the natural family which he had acquired by birth even though he is legally deemed to be a member of the new family. Note that the clause protects only the property which had vested in the adopted child before the adoption.

In Har Chand V. Ranjeet, AIR 1986 P & H 259 case, ‘X’ had two sons, ‘A’ and ‘B’. He died leaving them behind. Subsequently, ‘B’ was given in adoption. ‘A’ claimed the entire properties of his father on the averment that on B’s adoption, he left the natural family and all his ties were severed. Rejecting this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that soon after the death of X, a share in the properties of his father got vested in him. Subsequently, on adoption, he cannot be divested of this property.

In Ramanna Gowda V. Shankarappa, AIR 1988 Kant.248  case, the High Court held that since on adoption the adopted child becomes a member of the adoptive family and all ties in his natural family are severed and all ties in the adoptive family are created, the child adopted by coparcener’s widow becomes a coparcener and therefore, becomes entitled to share in the joint family property as and when partition is effected. The court added that even when on the death of one of the two coparceners (when the coparcenary consists of only two coparceners), the property passes to the sole surviving coparcenary, on account of the presence of the widow of the coparcener the joint family does not cease to exist. When the widow of the coparcener adopts a son, the coparcenaries is revived and the adopted son becomes a coparcener and on the partition is entitled to a share. The court said that the question of vesting and divesting did not arise as the joint family continued to exist and the properties also continued to be the joint family property. In view of this, the adopted son also has a right to seek partition, and he along with his adoptive mother could take the same share which the deceased coparcener would have taken had he been alive. In Dharma Shamrao Agalawe V. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe AIR 1988 SC 845 case, the Supreme Court confirmed this view.

In Yarlagadda Nayudamma V. Govt. of A. P., AIR 1981 A. P. 19 case, the Court held that that notwithstanding adoption, a person in Mitakshara family has got a vested right even in the undivided property of his natural family which on adoption he continues to have a right over it.

As per Clause (c) of Section 12 of the Act, an adopted child cannot have the right to divest any person of any estate which had vested in him or her before adoption. Thus, when a person, who was not a coparcener, adopts a son, his adopted son does not divest him of any property. All his properties continue to vest in him. His adopted son acquires no interest whatever in his properties. If he dies intestate, his adopted son along with other heirs will succeed to his property.

In Joti Dadu Navale V. Manukabai, AIR 1988 Bom. 348  case where a Hindu who had adopted a son, died, leaving behind a daughter and adopted son, both would inherit the property of their father in equal shares.

In Dinaji & others V. Daddi & others, AIR 1990 SC 1153  case, it was held that, Smt. Yashoda Bai who was the limited owner of the property after the death of the husband and after Hindu Succession Act came in to force, could become an absolute owner and therefore the property of her husband vested in her and therefore merely by adopting a child she could not be deprived of any of her rights in the property. The adopted child could get the rights for which he is entitled after her death as is clear from the scheme of Section 12 Clause (c) of the Act.

Previous Topic: Restrictive Conditions for Adoption (S. 11)

Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > Family Laws > The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 > Effects of Adoption