Representative image | Photo credit: Getty Images/Istockphoto
The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with an order from the Superior Court of Allahabad that ruled out adoption or a man in a case of real estate dispute, saying that it was a calculated movement to deny the daughter of his legitimate inheritance of his father.
The Superior Court, which also apologized for about four decades of delay in deciding the issue of adoption presented in 1983, also said the mandatory requirement that a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife.
All about the case
Shiv Kumari Devi and Harmunia were daughters of Bhuneshwar Singh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh. The Ashok Kumar petitioner had affirmed that he was adopted by Singh of his biological father Subedar Singh in a ceremony and a photograph was produced before the court. Kumar has opted a claim in the inheritance of Bhuneshwar Singh.
A Bank of Judges Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh rejected the plea presented by Kumar against the order of the Superior Court of December 11, 2024 that refused to accept the validity of August 9, 1967, the adoption, saying that mandatory procedures were not followed.
Court Judgment
The Top Court Said, “Having Heard Senior Counsel for the petitage at a considerable length and on carefully perusing the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the adoption did did dated august 9, 1967, was nothing but a calculated move kumari – or throw to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to RefrVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE TO DEPRIVE to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive to deprive the right of inheriting the assets of his father, the audience, Judge Surya Kant
The Bank, in its recently approved order, said that the consolidation authorities and the Superior Court have correctly ruled out said document, which has no legal holiness.
The Superior Court said: “In the circumstances mentioned, the Court is considered that it is not a reason to interfere with the reasoned order approved by the Board of Income as the mandatory requirements for the valid petion were, however, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore, therefore,”. He had said that the findings returned by the Income Board are in terms of previous verdicts.
In addition, there is evidence that it has not contradicted the leg that the adoptions were carried out without the consent of the wife of the person who adopted the child. Therefore, the mandatory requirement was not met, as well as the nature of the evidence has also demonstrated beyond the reasonable doubt that the Dar y Bar ceremony was carried out.
The Superior Court had said that it could undoubtedly maintain that the wife of the adoptive man had not signed the adoption, as well as the photographs also indicate that he had not participated in the ceremony.
“A witness has not only identified in the photographs, therefore, the court is of the opinion considered that the mandatory requirement that a person who adopts a child must have the consent of his wife was absent,” he said.
The daughter’s lawyer said that the adoption should be proven in terms of proven provisions under the maintenance and adoption law of 1956 and the consent of the wife of a man who adopts a child was mandatory, as well as to give and must be a ceremony.
“However, in the present case, the signing of the adopted mother was in the adoption, nor was he present at the time of registration. The adoptive father has given his consent while sitting in a ‘palki at the time of registration,” he was connected.
Published – April 13, 2025 04:28 PM IST