Landmark Cases on Adoption in India

Adoption is a vital legal institution in India, especially under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Over the years, courts have delivered several landmark judgements interpreting the Act’s provisions and laying down principles governing the capacity to adopt, the rights involved, and the procedure. These judicial pronouncements clarify legal ambiguities and balance traditional customs with modern social realities.

This article discusses key landmark cases that have shaped adoption law in India, explaining their significance in simple language.

Dhanraj v. Suraj Bai: Spousal Consent in Adoption

One of the earliest and important cases on adoption is Dhanraj v. Suraj Bai. Here, the question was whether a married Hindu man could adopt a child without his wife’s consent.

The court held that under Section 8 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the consent of the wife is necessary before a husband adopts a child. However, the law provides exceptions where consent is not required — if the wife has renounced worldly life (become a sannyāsini), has ceased to be a Hindu, or is declared mentally unsound by a competent court.

Ambrish Kumari v. Hatu Prasad: Consent of Persons with Disabilities

In this case, the prospective adopter was both deaf and blind. The legal issue was whether such a person could effectively give consent to adoption.

The Supreme Court ruled that consent need not be verbal or written in the usual sense. It can be shown by any clear and unequivocal gesture that those around can understand.

Hanmant Laxman Salunke v. Shrirang Narayan Kanse: Age Difference Between Adopter and Child

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act mandates a minimum age difference of 21 years between the adopter and the adopted child. This case reinforced the importance of that rule.

The court held the age difference is mandatory to ensure that the adopter is sufficiently older, reflecting a natural parent-child relationship.

Ram Das v. Gandiabai: Maintenance Is Not Adoption

This case involved a stepparent who had been maintaining a child but claimed adoption rights.

The court clarified that mere payment of maintenance or care does not amount to adoption unless there is clear evidence of giving and taking the child in adoption.

Nemichand Shantilal Patni v. Basantabai: Burden of Proof of Adoption

In cases where adoption is disputed, the burden is on the person claiming adoption to prove it.

Here, there was no concrete evidence that the child was given and taken in adoption. The court held that adoption did not take place.

Malti Roy Chowdhury v. Sudhindranath and Brijendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh: Gender and Consent

These two cases deal with the rights of married women to adopt.

• In Malti Roy Chowdhury, the court held that a married woman could not adopt even with her husband’s consent, reflecting a strict interpretation of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
• Later, in Brijendra Singh, the court took a more progressive view and overruled Malti Roy. It held that a married woman living separately from her husband, effectively as a divorced woman, could adopt.

Ram Sakhi Kuer v. Daroga Prasad Singh: Effect of Remarriage on Adoption Rights

This case dealt with whether a mother who remarried could give her child in adoption.

The court ruled that once a mother remarries, she loses the right to place her child for adoption, reaffirming the importance of marital status in such decisions.

Kumar Sursen v. State of Bihar: Religion and Adoption

Under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, only Hindus may adopt Hindu children. In this case, a non-Hindu attempted to adopt a Hindu child.

The court held that adoption by a non-Hindu under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is void. Different religious communities have their own personal laws governing adoption or guardianship.

Amar Singh v. Tej Ram: Custom and Adoption

This case recognised that customs of a community permitting the adoption of a married person should be respected so long as they do not contradict statutory law.

This underscores India’s pluralistic legal system, where customary practices coexist with statutory rules if consistent.

Shankar Kumar Das: Right Guardian and Child Welfare

Here, the issue was who could file an adoption petition, especially in cases involving abandoned children.

The court held that the “right guardian” — typically the biological parent or legal custodian — must file the application. Also, courts should ensure the child’s welfare as per the Juvenile Justice Act while deciding adoption.

Conclusion

The law on adoption in India is evolving through important judicial interpretations. The landmark cases discussed provide clarity on who can adopt, how consent is given, and the safeguards protecting both the child and the adoptive family. While rooted in statutory provisions, courts also consider social realities and individual rights, particularly women’s autonomy and the welfare of disabled persons.

For anyone dealing with adoption, understanding these cases helps navigate the legal framework confidently and ensures adherence to proper procedures that uphold the child’s best interests.