Skip to main content

Adoption under Hindu law

 


Adoption under Hindu law 

By swatee Shukla 

The ancient Hindu law of adoption was mainly based on the religious belief that a son was essential not so much for the material welfare of a man as for his spiritual salvation. However, with the passing of the Hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956, the law of adoption applicable to Hindus has undergone a radical change. Under the ancient Hindu law, the religious motive underlying adoption is completely superseded. Unlike the ancient Hindu law, the act now allows not only an adult person, married or unmarried, to adopt a child (a boy or girl), and also allows an adult woman (unmarried, widowed, divorced) a right to adopt a child to herself. The act deals with the capacity to adopt; the capacity to be adopted; the capacity to give in adoption and the effect of adoption. 

Capacity to adopt – any Hindu male who is minor and of sound mind and has taken consent from his wife(if he is married) can adopt. But regarding the third criteria i. e. consent from the wife, such consent is not required if the wife has completely renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been proven by a court of competent jurisdiction to be mentally unsound. Any Hindu female who is a major and is of sound mind can adopt a child. For a married woman to adopt a child, it has to be shown that her husband has completely renounced the world, or has ceased to be a Hindu, or has been proven by a court of competent jurisdiction to be mentally unsound. By the virtue of amendment in 2010, the old Hindu law has bid adieu when the Hindu female whose marriage was in subsistence had no capacity to adopt even with the consent of her husband. Now, married women having a living husband can also adopt a child along with the due consent of her husband.

The capacity of being adopted- the child who is a Hindu and has not had already been adopted and is below 15 years of age and is unmarried. If a male child is being adopted, the person who is adopting must not already have a son, son’s son, whether natural or adopted. If a female child is being adopted, the person who is adopting must not already have a daughter or son’s daughter. In case a person is adopting a child of a gender different from that of the person adopting, then the age difference must be greater than 21 years. Two people can not adopt the same child like two friends or two sisters can not adopt the same kid. An adopted child is deemed to be a natural child of his adopted parents for all purposes. All the relations with the natural parents and family come to an end. However, he is barred from marrying any person that he could not have married before adoption. He is also not divested of the property vested in him before adoption and he can not divest anybody of his vested property after adoption. As far as the family which adopted him is concerned, he is treated as a member of that family and his relationship is as if he were born naturally into their family. No payment as a consideration for the adoption may be taken. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more