CHAPTER 8

ADOPTION
SYNOPSIS
.353 8.2.2.13 Adopted Child of Unmarried
8 /Incroduction.
.354 Person: Barred from
R 2 H i n d uL a w

Adoptions and
821
Hindu
Maintenance Act, 1956. .354 Compassionate
Analysis
Appointment. 366
Salient
Features, 8.2.2.14 No Divestiture. ...366
022 354
and Cases 8.2.2.15 Adopion Efective
Capacity to Adopt...55 Only from Date
8.2.2.1
8.2.2.2 Capacity to Give
in of Adopion. .368
Adoption. ....3.55 8.2.2.16 Adoptive Parents Rights to
822.3 Who can be Adopted..355 Dispose of Property
82.2.4 Efect of Adoption..3.56 Not Affected........368
8.2.2.5 Gender Bias.. .357 8.2.2.17 Muliple Adoption
Proof
8.2.2.6 Factum and of Same Gende. ...368
of Adoption.. .358 8.2.2.18 Same Gender, Muliple
8.2.2.7 Age Requirement......1 Adopion visa-vi
8.2.2.8 Adopted Child to Juvenile Justice Act.....69
be Hindu. .362 8.2.2.19 Adoption by Proxy.....3.*10
8.2.2.9 Consent of Wife ......3.62 8.2.3 Prohibition of Consideration
8.2.2.10 Consent of the in Respect of Adoption. 371
8.3 Parsi ILaw. 37
Father. .363
8.4 Muslim Law. 372
8.2.2.11 Consent of
.363 8.5 Christian Law. .372
Co-widow.
8.6 Conclusion . . . .373
8.2.2.12 Widow's Rights .....364

81 Introduction
through which an individual belonging by birth
Adoption is the institutionalised practice defined as
kinship group acquires new kinship ties that are socially (and legally) wholly or
Io one ties supersede the old ones either
cquivalent to the congenital ties. These new
in part. object of adopting a
The custom and practice of adoption is not arecent one, though theneglected or destitute
of caring and bringing up a
child has varied from humanitarian motive
object of affection, a caretaker
an
in old age, and an heir
child, to a natural desire for a son as
ater death.

Sciences, vol 1, p95.

I. International Encvcloedia of Social

53
 354 Family Law I
(A) Personal Laws

8.2 Hindu Law

for centuries, but being a
In India, adoption has been recognisedcommunities. The part of
IS no uniformity among the different yariations
adopted child exactly like a natural born child, to not recognisino therange personal \abaws
all. Hindu law is the only law which recognises adoption in the true
status of from
as a substitute fora natural born one. The
reason fot this is
partly sense
due to theof
ireang
well as material welfare of the
IS indispensable for spiritual as family,
father. In Bal Gangadbar Tilak v Shrinivas Pandit, the Privy Council
continuation of the.
particularly
observed
among the Hindus is necessary not only for the childless
also as a religious means to make those oblations
and sacrifices
which wouldfather's
of the deceased (father) passing from Hades to Paradise. Similary. in
Sanatan Singh, the Privy Council observed: Amarendrapermit the n)
The foundation of the Brahmanical doctrine of adoption is the duty which Mansing
owes to his ancestors to provide for the continuance of
the line and the every Hindu
thenecessary rites. solemnization of
It is significant to note, however, that only ason could fulfl the role of "deliverer
permissiblSreomwheehel
The adoption of a daughter was thus not legally recognised though it was
custom allowed it.
Adoptions made prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maies
1956 were governed by customs and the burden of proving the validity of an ate
on the person claiming it. Prior tothe Act, adoption of a temale was not known la
Samanta vSambbu Mondal, a lady challenged probate of Willon the ground thar h
the adopted daughter of the deceased who died intestate and the probate was
She, however, failed to discharge the burden of proof of the validity of adoption. Itfraudulen,
was bel
therefore, that she could not challenge the probate.
8.2.1 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
The Hindu Law on adoption has undergone radical changes after the enactment of the Hinda
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The Act is prospective and not applicabk
to pre-Act adoptions.
8.2.2 Salient Features, Analysis and Cases
Salient features and some pertinent issues and cases under the Act are as tollows:
Old law vis-a-vis new law.- Significant changes in the Act are as follows:
(0) Females have been given a right to take and give in adoption.
(ii) Afemale whose husband is living can adopt with his consent. ohe
(ii) Awidow can adopt to herself unlike earlier law where she could adopt only
deceased husband. wieies
(iv) A married male Hindu who wants to adopt has to take consent ofthe
aw I Chapter8Adoption 355

al Laws a Only a major can adopt; prior to the Act even a minor who had reached the age of
discretion could adopt.
Capacityto. Adopt
ries. but being a part of personal
The variations range from la vws, male Hindu of sound mind may adopt a child. If he is a married man, he needs to
ties. the a d u l t

consent. Such consent, however, is not required if his wife is of unsound mind,
not recognising the status of
codoption in the true sense of taking
reating Any
his
wife's
r e n o u n c e d
the world of has ceased to be a Hindu by
Conversion. If a person has more
the time of adoption, the consent of all of them is necessary,
cake

due to the belief has

wwife at unless they are
for this is partly
elfare of the family, particularly thahat
or
thai
onc

froom any
of the disabilities tmentioned above.
a Personal Laws (Amendment)
(A
2the Privy Council observed
s u f t e r i n g

Act, 2010, a female adult Hindu of sound mind

childless that adopion
Priorto the

ntinuation of the.e child under the following situations, viz., she is:
father's couldadopta
andsacrifices which would
permitname, buthe sou
( ) u n m a r r i e d ;

radise. Similarly, in Amarendra

Mansinghv
(Gi) divorced;

(ii) widowed; or
fadoption is the. duty which every Hindu suffers from certain disabilities viz., he has:
her husband
ance of the line and che solemnization of (iv) ceased to be a Hindu;
(a) or
renounced the world:
(b) has
of "deliverer" been declared to be of unsound mind by a court."
could fulfil che role from hel (c) has
ecognised chough it was permissible wher above mentioned Amendment Act, however, a female's right to adopt has been
the
After
par with the male's right.
brought at
e Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance to Give in Adoption
proving the validity of an adoption
Capacity
of known, In
of persons who could givein adoption, the Act prior to 2010 provided®
BingpoZ22

n of a female was not the capacity

obate of Will on the ground that she se As regards father was alive, then he alone could give in adoption, though the mother's consent
intestate and the probate was
fraudulenr that if fthe Such consent was notj required
if the mother was of unsound mind, or had
to be a Hindu. However, if the father was not alive or
bof of the validity of adoption. It was hel
required.
ceased
was the world, or had
of these legal disabilities, then the mother had a right to give the child in
renounced

suffered from any

Where both the parents are dead, or are legally incompetent to give in adoprion,
previous
adoption. may give the child in adoption with the
1956 hen in that case, the guardian'" of the childincluding the guardian himself. Before graning
enactment of the Hind nermission of the court, to any person, has to satisty itself that: (i) the adopion is for the
Ichanges after the court
such permission to a guardian, thewishes
prospective and not applicable have been ascertained and (iii) chere is no
finanial
The Act is wlfare of the child: (i)the child's
in the trarnsaction.
Consideration

L3 Who can be Adopted

adopted should be a Hindu and normally
follows:
are as
under the Act
as follows: Ihe Act also provides that a person whois to be usage applicable to the pardes
custom or
es in the Act
are
below the age of 15 and unmarried, unless there is a
and give in adoption.
consent.
lopt with his adopt only to he AIR 1918 Mad 1072: (1917)40 Mad
she could Sattiraiu v Venkataswami,
ier law
where OVarain v Seroda, (1871) 15 WR 548:AIR 1942 Bom 284.
wife wives Kashnith Balkrishna v Anant Murlidhar,
ofthe 7. 3;
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance. Act, 1956, section 7. (Amendmenc) Act
now amended vide Personal Law
take consent
Dpt has to law. Maintenance Act. 1956. section 8.
under pre-Act 2010pdons and
5 not
permissible
9. amended vide Personal
Law (Amendmenc) Act
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, section 8, now
2010, section
10. According
9. Personal Law
now amended vide
to Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, section 8, and/or property
(Amendment) person having the care of person
of the child andAct 2010, section 9(í-a)::"A "guardian" means athe child's mother or facher, or by the court.
36 (Cal). includes a person so appointed by the will of
356
Family Law I
which permits adoption of those who
Also, the child to be adopted should have completed
not have the age of 15
been already or
Aperson, who has a Hindu Son,
cannot adopt a son. Likewise, a
adopt adaughter. In case the person who hassons
son' s son, or adopted.
son's son, either thos.ho are
an age difference of 21
ycars.
adopter and
adoptee
a
Hindu daughter hwl
or
tmartie
years older than the child Thus, if a male
to wants
belong to opposite soni's
must be 21l years older than
Navayan
but the ageKanse, while acustom
the
be adopted.
child to Similarly,
to
a
adopt a female,gender,
be adopted.!" female wishing tohe must he
daugter tan
This condition difference between thepermitting adopion InCa Hanmant Laxman De
being mandatory, adoptive mother and the child over D Salunke at\eas)
hertesite
The Act does its breach was adopted son years was
The only not require the held to be fatal to the was\ess estak
the child requirement performance than
from the
is the
law that he child family of its birth actual giving and
of any formal
taking of the childceremonies. aopion.
fact that in a to be adopted has
to the family who with he ke dutta
happened to beparticular case, four to be from within the adopts; nor is thereintention hom
within the family. from within the family adoptions took place overfamily or outside
v Bhagwantbuval4"Custom cannot is no a period of he condiioni
be proved byproof of custom that 3315
logic or analogy" adoption yearhas Sfamandit y.he
B224 Efect of Adoption the court held : to be
onrom
Upon adoption, the
becomes adoptive child severs all
rights andpart and parcel of the adoptive his
connections
obligations
three exceptions to of a natural born
family with effect fromwiththethe natural End
this, viz.: child of the family
fall on him.date of
(1) The child
hel she not cannot marry any person adoopi, on. Al
However
(i) Any been taken in whom he
thet:a
or
property vesting in adoption.
him subject the
she could not have
maried Ll
to the adopted
obligation, if any, child before
(iim) incuding
The adoptive obligations to maintainattaching with adoption
the continues to vetin
the ownership
child
her before adoption."5cannot divest any relations of his or her birth. of the property.
While it is true that person of any estate
does not deprive the adopted
1
which vested in him g
the adopive child gets
vivos or by will,father or mother property
by transfer inter rights in his new
unless there is an of the power to dispose of family, an adopion
The wife of a
an
adoption is
Hindu male, who agreement imposing suchhis or her propetg
is deemed to made with adopts, is deemed to
be the adopiverestricion."
be adoptive the consent of more than
widower or bachelor, any mother and others as one wife, the senior mother; wàet
woman whom he stepmother. In the case most in martag
11. According
subsequently marries is the of adopion byi
to, section
9(-a):
stepmother of tue
child and includes a "A "guardian
12.
According to, sectionperson so appointed by means a person having
child and includes a 9((-a): the care of perSon
"A "guardian' the will of the child's morher
13. person so appointed by means a person having or farher. or byand/or
Hanmant Lacman Salunke propey,
the court', seci
the will of the care
Yengkhen Ongbi, AIR 2005 v Shrirang Narayan the child's mother or father,person and/or property
of
14. Lamibai v Bhagwantbuva, NOC 307(Gau). Kanse, AIR 2006 Bom 123; see or by the courtSuraj
15.
16. Hindu Adoptions and AIR 2013 SC 1204: also Koijam ,secd! Singh
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, (2013) 4 SCC 97.
Maintenance 1956, section 12.
Act,
 Chapter 8--Adoption 357

child. Similarly, in case of adoption by a widow or an unmarried woman, any man whom
marries
is deemed to be the step-father of the child. 17 In this context an 1ssue that came
was whether, in case of an adoption by a widow, would the
18
she
the Supreme Court,
hefore be hís heir?
a
upd o p t e dc h i l A
be deemed to bethe child of the deceased husband as well, so as to
involved succession to the properties
of the widow's husband-the widow, too, had
Thecase
within two months after adoption. The dispute was between the adopted son and the
d
of the deceased husband. For the reversioner, it was argued that the adopted
SOn

he (the adopted son) was not

r e v e r s i o n e r

dnot succeed to the properties of widow's husband, sinceMaintenance Act, 1956, having
of the deceased husband. The Hindu Adoptions and
che son
adoption on a female Hindu, if a widow adopts a son be
onferred an independent right of of the deceased
the son of the widow only, and cannot be deemed to be the son of
becomes
by the Act. The courts did not
doctrine of relation back has been abrogated
husband as the 5(1) are adoption "by or to a
Itwas held, that the words
accept this argument.
intended, according to the court, to cover cases where an
Hindu'". Adoption to a Hindu was child of another person
adopted child becomes the
adoption is made by one person while the adoption is by the female, but the adoption would
the actual
lso, So,if awidow adopts ason,to her deceased husband. Referring to section 12 of the Act,
not only be to herself, but also of the adoption all ties of the child in the family of
from the date married
the court pointed out that created in the adoptive family; it is well recognised that a also
birth are severed and new ties and accordingly, the adopted child must
of her husband
female belonged to the family court said. It is pertinent to note that section 14 ofadopted by
the Hindu
the child
belong to the same family, Act, 1956 deals with four situations in which a mention as to
Adoptions and Maintenance no
stepchild of another. There is, howeve,deceased husband,
adopted or of the
one person becomes the by a widow would also become the child widower's adopting
whether a child adopted accepted, would on
court's interpretation were to be well? Suppose a widow, after
if the
and conversely, become the child of the deceased mocher as
father (the deceased husband
achild, the child one adoptive
child, remarries. Would the child have This needs to be clarified to avoid
adopting a step-father (husband she
marries)?
widow) and one
of the child renounce
anomalous interpretations. can the adopted
cancelled by the
parents, nor
cannot be
Adoption once made family of his/her birth, 19
return to the
his/her status and
posi
82.2.6 Factum and Proof ofAdoption
formalities for adoption, yet, some ceremony
Though the law does not prescribe too many adoption. In
of giving and taking of the child needs to be established in support of a valid
significant. The
judgment in Ram Das Gandiabai, 26 is
this context, the Supreme Court
 Chapter 8-Adoption 359
petitioner filed asuit for
the
petitioner had no rightpartition against the deceased father's brother. The latter alleged that
he had over the properties, as he was no longer a member of the family,
because

maintained him beengiven away in adoption to a man whom his mother later married and who
The court did not accept
this
on his
maintenance
does not by plea. It held that simply because the step-father spent money
held that even thoughitself imply that he had been adopted bythe step-father. It was
he was broughtup by the step-father, he continued to be the
accordingly

member
ofhis
deceased father's family, with all the rights of a son of that family.
In Nilma Mukherjee vKanta Bhushan Ghosh,"
account with
the where plea of adoption was taken on the
hasis of ajoint alleged adoptivet
father, the court held that mere fact of having
ioint account 1S no proof of adoption
Similarly, in Dhanno vTubi Ram, which was
yirtue of adoption, the court refused to accept that athere was adispute
property based onThe
valid adoption. some
sonclaims by
claimed
to be the adoptee, but treated his biological father, rather than the alleged adoptive mother,
as his parent. Besides, there was no other evidence on record to show any ceremony regarding
adoption. In these circumstances, a mere placing of a registered adoption deed on record,
without provingthe factum of adoption, was held to be not enough evidence of adoption. The
c o u r to b s e r v e d . 2 9

Evidence in support of adoption must be sufficient to

satisfybythealleging
heavy burden that rests
upon any person who secks to displace the natural succession the adoprion.
Validiy oof an adoption deed was successfully challenged in Ram Chandrav Banwari Lal0
where thealleged adoption deed did not bear the Signature/thumb impression of the narural
fatherrof the adoptee or any of his guardians nor was there any indication of presence of parents
weuardians of the adoptee at the time of execution or registration of the adopion deed.
InPafulla Bala Mukherje vSatish Chandra Mukherje," the »adopive' mother sought a
decre for declaration of absolute right, title and interest in respect of the properry built by the
adopted son, and also a decree for perpetual injunction restraining his relatives, the defendants,
fom interfering with occupation and possession of the property. According to the court the
mere fact that, an allegedly adopted son permitted his "adopive" mother, and her family to live
inhis house, was no proof of adoption. On the contrary, there were several facts to disprove
he adoption like the adopted son treating his natural mother as his mother till his own death;
ypointing her as his nominee in the insurance policy, provident fund etc.; performing the
Maha ceremony of his natural father, and on his own death, his shradha ceremony being
petformed by his brother.
sufficient
plea ofadoptionwas rejected in Suma Bewa vKB Nayak" also, as there was no
n Te was no document executed by the parties in support of the alleged adoption, no
adoptive father, nor
son as son of
poraneous
any document document
to show recording
that the name ofname of adopted
the adoptive father was recorded in the service book
adopted son. On voter's list indicated the name of the natural father.
Besides, oral evidence the contrary, the
were examined to
was found to be suspicious; no independent witneses
Ped son eTemony nor a single neichbour examined such.
to testify that adoptive father and
lving together and addressing each other as
1. Nilima
.
Mukherjee
Dhan o Tuhi Ram.vKanta Bhushan Ghosh, AIR 2001 SC2725: 2001 (4) AWC2515
9. DhanN
(SC).
360 FamilyLaw I
In Oriental Insurance Co Lid vLalita Sharma 33 the mere fact that the child in was ving
Ii
his father and the step-mother, who claimed to bebethe adoptive
the adopt
mother, the same with
held not enough to prove adoption.
house was
was purported to be
a will but was in
In Sabodoa vSatya Prakash, a document which
which
fq
acr
filed
anadoption deed was fraudulently sioned. The plainiff (appellant in this case)
evidence of ceremony of
get the document declared null and void. There was no
the adopted son continued to be associated with theof natural
parents and not with
15 at time of adoption hut no Custom
adopiadopion,ve
parents, the alleged adopted child was above the age of l?
permitting such adoption was proved: in view of all the above,
the court refused to acen
adoption and the deed wasdeclared nulland void.
However, if there is suficient evidence of adoption, the same cannot be easily diesl
enough evidence ofof.adopion,
Thus, in Chandan Bilasini vAfabuddin Khan, 35 where there was
and some otherOn,
themere fact that the adoptive mother, whowas an old lady of 30, in the
who were ppresent at the adoption ceremony, could not be produced court gving
evidence, was held not to be enough to assailthe validity of the adoption. Also, where torall rituals
of adoption as per Hindu law were followed the adoption deed was registered and photoe
and negatives of photographs which had been taken at the time of adoption were produced,
the adoption cannot be challenged.%
not mandatory and the
Itis significant to note that registration of an adoption deed is not
no presumpion in law against the validity of an unregistered adoption." However, when the
same is registered, there is astrong presumption under section 16 of the Act that the adonrion
has been made in compliance with the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved 8
Such presumption, however, is not irrebuttable and the court may refuse to
accept an alleged
adopion as legal despite it being registered if there is evidence of circumstances
there was no valid adoption. indicating that
Such presumption, cannot however, be rebutted by minor discrepancies in the evidence:"
Validity of an adoption can be challenged
question of validity comes within reasonable time. Normally,
rights crop up. In Siddalingaiah up long after the adoption when issues connected however, the
raised 40 v HK Kariappa,l with property
years after the adoption, the court held that where the challenge to an adopion was
registered,
it after such parties to the
along gap wouldadoption would
the
have constructive moment the adoption deed we
bar of be barred by notice of the same and challenging
dismiss limitation
the suit. is not set up as a defence it
limitation.
is the
The court further clarified that even
duty of the court to take note eof this and
ot
B3.
34. Oriental Insurance
Sahodora vSatya Co Ltd vLalita Sharma,
35. Chandan Prakash, AIR
Bilasini v 2018 (191) 346 2006 NOC) 326 (HP).
220,Aftabuddin Khan, AIR (Raj).
AIR 1990 P&H
36. presumption
Saroja cannot hewhere it was 1996 SC
 Chapter 8-Adoption 361
Age Requirement
the proViSiOn of the Act.42 a
Under
There is, however, child to be adopted must above the age
of15.
an exception to this rule, if parties arenot, to establishbethat under the
ableordinarily
Customs a n d
usages governing them, adoption of a child above 15 In Uma
v Padmavati, the claim of an years is permissible.
Prasad
on grounds, inter alia, that the boy was adopted son
above theto
ageproperties
of 15 was
when sought
he was to be challenged
was not valid. The adopted, and so
parties, who
hat they were governed by an ancientwere
che a d o p t i o n
che Agrawals by caste, however, succeedea m
and
adoption of boys over the age of l5. Thewell-established
p e r m i t t e d

custom and usage, which

adoption was, consequently, held to be
Siimilarly, in Khagenbam Sadbu v Khagembam
was proved, the challenge that the child was above Ibotial
valid. Singh,4
15 years, and where the
Manipuri fact of adoption
Custom did not
was Ph adoption, was held to be not sustainable as the
such adoption was not proved. Adoption was therefore held alleged Manipuri custom against
to be valid.
.oer. in acase where the plaintiff who was married and above the age of 30, could not
such custom or usage being observed openly, continuously and uniformly thereby
gaining the force of law in his Digambara Jain Community, the court refused to recognise
gidity
the of an alleged adoption. So also in Amit Chandubhai Chauhan vu Abmedabad
Municibal Corp, where an alleged adopted son son sought
sought compassionate appointment after
.he death of his mother, his case was rejected as he was aged 23 at the ime of the alleged
adoption and. he could not prove cogent evidence of existence of acustom permiting adoprion
fchild over 15 years. In Harnek Singh v Pritamalleged
Singh,"adoption
the plea of adopion in respect of a
Punjab
person over 23 years and married at the time of was dismissed by che
and Haryana High Court as well as the Apex Court, on appeal. Similarly, in Parvathamma v
Shivakumar,"48 where child over the age of 15 was allegedly adopted and it was notestablished
permiting
that there was a judicially recognised custom amongst the Lingayats of Karnaraka
violation of section
such adoption, the same was held to be void under section 5(1) being in however, where che
10(iv) of the Act. In Atluri Brabmananda (dead) through LRv AS Bapuji,to which he belonged,
community
petitioner succeeded in proving the custom in the "Kamma`
custom and fact of adoption was also
fecogn1sing adoption of aboy over the age of 15 and this
disproved, the adoption was held to be
corded in the registered adoption deed which was not
ald. In Patel Mukeshkumar v Regional Passport Authority," the petitioner's application before
father's name in his passportwas rejected
passport authorities for inclusion of his adoptive and hence che adopion
onne theground that the appellant was aged 34 at the time of adoptionpassport authority has no
DoValid. On appeal against this
rejection, it was held that the
otherwise of the adoption as such finding could
bebe wO render a finding regarding legality or deed
was affected by a registeredmade in
given only
and vide section by a Competent court. Further, the adoption the same has been
that
ccion l6 16 of the Act, there is a legal presumption this case, it was
unless it is proved otherwise. Indisproved, hence
Dotmpliance
iot case tn
the ca the statutory requirements the adoption has been
the of the of passport
the adoption wouldthatapply,
authority the court held.
presumption ofrespondent
validity of
passport
42. Hindu Ad
 362 Family Law I
L8.2.2.8 Adopted Child to be Hindu
As is obvious from the title of the Act, that, all parties, in the context of
Hindus. In Kumar Sursen v State of Bihar.S! the issue of adoption of a Muslim
before the court. The child was admittedly brought up by Hindu parents since child
adopüon, Iiug
age and they also treated him liketheir so, The court however, declined to. give ishim verny ten
of an adopted child in view of the specific provision of section 100) of the Act. the taty
8.2.2.9 Consent of Wife
Under the provisions of the Act, a Hindu male adopting a child needs his wifes
coNsent,
if he has mnorethan one wife, the consent of al the wives is required. It is no excuse and
male adopter to say that his other wife was living separately from him, and so
was not obtained. Thus, an adoption made with the consent of one wife only w Lthe Onconsen
invalid in Bhooloramv Ramlal.$2 Similarly, in Siddaramappa v Gouravva, the court
an alleged adoption by a male without seeking his wife's consent. The plea that theinvalidaek
between the husband and wife were strained, and therefore her consent could not be
not accepted, as there was documentary evidence to establish that they were taken wa
iving
the time of the alleged adopion. There was nothing to indicate that it was
impossibtloegetoherhaea
wife's consent. Apart from that, when conditions under which such consent may be
With are specified in the Act, taking any other plea would be adding words to dispensat
Moreover, the words in the proviso "he shall not adopt except with the consent the statute.
are emphatic and render the provision mandatory. The logic behind this provision,ofae his wif
to the court is:$4
Adoption is admission of a stranger by birth to privileges of a child born to adoptive
parents. With the adoption, the child acquires interest in property belonging to adoptive
parents. Thus, the adoption affects the right of a Hindu wife in the property of her
husband... Therefore, having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act and the
underlining principle of equality sought to be achieved... any other interpretation would
be contrary to the letter and spirit of the
enactment.ithDat Siliy
In Bhanu Pratap Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh,
couple was held to be no reason for the man to dispensemere fact of estrangement betwen te
There is nosuch thing as virtual or constructive with the wife's consent for adopion.
the wife's consent for adoption was held to be divorce and even if the couple were estrangel,
mandatory, the court held.
The consent of the other
be real and explicit and not byparent/spouse as provided in sections 7 and 8 of the Act has D
Supreme Court. It was apropertysurmises. Ghisalal v Dhapubai,"is a
dispute where the issue
significant judgment u
even though by aregistered of validity of an adoption by an,
wife in the adoption. While deed, was raised. The focal
the petitioner claimed point was, inter alia, the envited
consent of the
to the properties of the that he being the adopted son Was
absence of wife's consent.adoptive father, the latter denied the very factum of adoption :andakso
High Court were all of The trial court, the lower appellate court and the Madhya Pradesh
the adoptive male can bethe opinion that the adoption was valid and the consent of the wieaf
in the ceremonies of inferred from the circumstances of the case, spresent
adoption and did not question the adoption viz., that she was
till the stage o
1
Kumar Sursen v State of
loram vRamlal, AIR Bibar, AIR 2008 Pat 24: 2008 (1) Pat
1989
ramappa vGouravva, AIR MP 198; see also LJR 92.
A). 2004 Kant 230, seeKashibai v Parwatibai, 1995 AIR SCW 4631.
 363
Chapter 8-Adoption
written statement in the suit filed by the petitioner. On appcal however, the Supreme Court
analysed the facts and circumstances of the case in detail and set aside the judgment of the
courts below; the adoption was held tobe invalid.
It remarked 57
Unfortunately all courts completely ignored that the presence of D[the wife opposite
party] was only asa mute spectator and not as an active participant... All of [the witnesses)
made a parrot like statement that D was sitting with other women below the platform
[Chabutra]. By no stretch of imagination this could be equated with her active participarion
in the adoption ceremonies so as to enable the court to draw an inference that she had given
consent for the adoption.
Thus, awife's mere presence as a spectator in the assembly of people gachered at the place
where ceremonies were performed was held to be of no proof of her consent. An adoption
allegedly made 51 years back was consequently invalidated. This undoubtedly is bound to
hugely impact property transactions made during this long period but the point has been
made explicit enough, not leaving any scope for interpretation. The mother's consent is equally
mandatory in giving and taking of a child in adoption. Thus, an adoption, even though the
registered, where child was given in adoption by the natural father but without consent of
mother, was held to be invalid in Deen Dayal v Sanjeev Kumar. S8
compasionate appointment as wll.
s2214 No Divestiture
An adopted child is deemedto be the child of his adoptive parents for all purposes, with effect
from the date of adoption. All the rights and liabilities accrue to this child only from thar
date and not prior to that. In Kisan Baburao Memane vSuresh Sadu Memane,"" an adopted
son sought todivest suit properties vested in defendants prior to the adoption. The facts, in
brief, were as follows: The original property owner died in 1919, and his widow gifted some
properties to the defendants in 1948. Several years after this gift, in 1973, the plainiff was
adopted by the widow. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of these properties, on the
ground that the rights tothese properties vested in him since his adoption in 1973 dated back
to 1919, when the original owner died. The trial court did not accept this argument, but he
lower appellate court reversed the findings and directed the appellants to handover the suit
properties to the plaintiff; hence the appeal. The Bombay High Court held that under section
12, an adopted child takes the position of achild of the family only with effect from the date of
the adopion, and sub-section (c) thereof cdearly provides that an adopted child shall not divest
any person of any estate which vested in him or her prior to the adoption. Under the pre-Act
law, awidow adopted to her deceased husband, and so the adopion dated back to the time
when the husband died, but the 1956 Act now permits a widow to adopt in her own right, so
the adoption takes effect only when the child is adopted. It was thus held that the adopted son
cannot divest suit property vested in the defendants before adoption.
Properties already vested in relatives or anyone prior to the adoption cannot be cdaimed by
the adopted child, the Karnataka High Court held, where a child claimed succession rights
retrospectively in the property of the deceased adoptive father."!
69. State Bank of India vShweta Sabu, (2010) 3 Scale 44.
70. Kisan Baburao Memane vSuresh Sadu M 1996 B
71. Siddamma vRayanagounda, AIR 20 ar
 Chapter 8--Adoption 367
In this context, Heevalal u Board of Revenue" was an anomalotss iudgment, where the
doctrine of relation back seems to have been resurrected. The case concerned the rights of
a son
adopted by a widow in the coparcenaries in which the deceased father was one of the
COoparceners.The father died in 1910, and the other surviving
mutated in their name. The widow adopted a son in 1959, i.e.,coparceners got the propery
after the coming into force
Gf the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance, Act, 1956. The son sought hís share in the joint
Emly property on the ground that by a thction of law which relates back the adoption to the
date of.father's death, he stepped into the shoes of his father on the latter's death. Though it
rAs argued against this, that the property already vested ín the surviving coparceners in 1910
and they could not be divested by the son who was adopted in 1959 in view of the provision
of section 12, but the court did not acceptit, It held that the adoption by the widow would
divest the other coparceners and their legal representatives of the interest of her husband in the
notwithstanding the partition
on amongst the surviving coparceners after
ioint family property,
the death of
her husband. Thus, the adopted son was held to be entítled to the share of his
deceased father in
the family property. s0e1
Achild given in adoption is
not divestedlof the rights which had already vested in him prior
adoption. Thus, a child given in adoption after the death of his father does not lose the
right and
title in the coparcenary property, which devolves on himimmedíately on the death
father. In Har Chand vRanjit,' the natural father
of.the adopted son had died before he
of the and thereby he succeeded to the property. Thereafter, he was held given in
was givenin adoption, natural ffather's property vested in him on his father's death, it was
that
adoption. Since the he inherited from
natural brother (in this
case), could not divest him ofthe property, which was
his Ajmer," the father died in 1918, and the son
LouralI father. In Revti vBoard of Revenue, property
his
Ginadoption in 1938. It was heldstatementthat upon adoption, his right in his father's lost
to the effect that upon adoption he has
affected. Even his own in him. "An
would not be
interest in the properties
would not affect the right already vested his ight,
right, title and
which is against the provsion
of law, will not take away
admission made by him), the law", the court observed."5
which he is entitled to under
uitle andinterest the property
int which is already
his adoptive family, family
However, an adoptee can
take only that property to natural or as sole
adoption, by inheritance
or by partition in the 12 cannot be
Clause (b) of section
Dested in him prior to absolute owner. coparcenary
as he becomes its a fluctuating
SusyIVIng coparcener vested in him, and is still
property has not been
attracted when the the
property.h ot 3i uponthe death of
brother in adoption, be entitled. The
of his sons to his ty was held not to
Whereeaa father gave away one his property to be dead for
who cl¡imed a share in the natural bornson is deemed
natural facher the son adoption, family.7
nurt held that is a valid adoptive
CoLu
oncA treated as, rereborn he adopted by his
the natural father:and o respondent who was that
Gurdiál Singh,
where the the court said
of his birth,
Likewise, in Kartar Singh v rights in the
family
ni issitati
maternal grandfather claimed property
in the
familyofbirth:
remain
pauon norights
AIR1987
MP 143.
Hariram,
Raj 318. Saroj Bai v
Heeralal Revenue, AIR 2001 SCC160.
See also
73. Vasant v vBoard of 1987 SC
S 398:
(1987) 1
74. Datta, AIR
368 Family Law I
8.2.15 Adoption Efective Ony ffrom Date of Adoption
Ás pointed out above, a child gets the status
of
date of adoption. In other words, the Doctrine ofadopted child in
Relarion the
context, an interesting case came up betore
Sate of Uttar Pradesh." The issue was
the Allahabad Back has
High been fany ony trom
child'sCourt
in regard to
of his freedom fighter father
who had died long adopted in
died in 1952 and as per the rules, the before the right to Abbi the sheb
little before her death widow received
adoption deed. After theshe adopted the seven-year-old son family adopion.
pension. The fa Shormay
widow' s of her She fr
the family pension. The
45 years after the death ofcourt
the
(i.e.
rightly
adoptive
rejected his claim on the hisdaught
mother's) death. er diied in
child through 9%,by
is not
applicable. The court alsofreedom fighter
observed and the legal fiction ground that appi
the ed for rejsiere
defeat the very object how this of
2.2.16 Adoptive Parents
of the freedom
fighter's family
case was a glaring
pension rules,. doctrine
example of oi reanlaionettot
Adopion Rights to Dispose of
and this hasdoes not ipso facto take away the Property Not Affected
The deceased,beenwhoreinforced by the Supreme adoptive
had adopted Court inparent's right to wil
daughter. The Will
agreement by was challengedhis byelder daughter's son,Chiranjilal Srilal
made a will Goenka their
away
the adopted
the adoptive father to the
the adopted son on the
in
favour v Jasjit QrSoinpealyr?,
unsigned
son
letter
alone will have full righteffect that after the deathground of
that thereofthe eyoung
lifetime. The matter restraining the father to over the property. There the father andwas an oxd
agreement between thewas referred to an execute a will or to disposewas nothing in the his
implied prohibition natural arbitrator, who of any aleget
court, against the father and the adoptiveinterpreted father, and letter propert
the
as an y during
it could,however, held that even adoptive parents to transter held
at the most, assuming any that thereadopüon
property is left afrer state that the son that the alleged letter waspart of the was
transfer would be an prooperty. Thean
in herNagegowda,
by
a widow during
adopted a lifetime or bequest by
entitled
the
to succeed adoption
as an heir agreement,
son succession on the death of son. She transterred some father. Similarly, in Ugrewhateset
challenged her of Gonua
held husband,
the plaintiff the gift. The in her properties,
of her
had no relevance court
with that the favour of the plaintiff,
transfer by way
which vested
right to dispose of her own adoption, as mere
of
adoption
title, by way of gift, inof favour
gift. The
8.22.17 property. The gift made does not deprive of
As has been
Multiple Adoption of Same Gender
by the mother the
was held to bemothe valida
child of the pointed out above,
that gender, same gender is not under the provisions of the Act,
vUOFS is adoption is not legal.$2permissible. In fact, even when adoption of more tha o
from takingsignificant. The petitioners,
another female
In this
context, the
who had already
one
Bombay High hasCourta biological child of
The child ruling in Sandea
the validity of this section was in adopion, in view of adopted a daughter,
Constitution of India, challenged on the
children since it
the provision of sectionwernd 110) and (ü. ).
and (iii) and parents without discriminated: ground
(i) between that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of
between parents withchildren; (i1) between a parents with unlimited Inumber of
any number child
of children adopted andla child to be adopted
79. Abhishek Sharma v of same sex Parents prevented
80 State of and
 Chapter8Adoption 369
sex in adoption. The court,
child of same however, dismissed this argument
G i v n
a k i n g
a n y
that
classification as carved out has not been created by the impugned
"the
obseredMAs tothechallenge under, Article 21, itt was arguedthat the rightto have afamiy
And
to
one choice, is a component of the concept of human dignity and the courts
e
sccording
recognised the right to live with human dignity as afundamental right, there should
the number of children one can
as to adopt. The court conceded that while
and
does have many facets numerous dimensions have been added by judicial
Aavig r e s t r i c t i o n
no lie
inerpretation
he to
night
during the last few years, that could not be stretched to accommodate every
she
desire
howsoever, laudable. According to the court, doing so would be "seriousBy
inappropriate". It observed:85
Itotally
p e r s o n a l
and
HTONg
de 21, even by stretching It to Its farthest end, cannot embrace such right of having
according to one's own choice. Aperson could have any number of biological
sizeoffamily Grace of God. That does not certainly render support to claim to have any
children, by
numberofchildren by adoption.
consequently
held,86
Thecourt for around
The Act with its mythological and secular mission has stood the test of time
tíme to time.
Ce decades and has conveniendy withstood the assaults as attempted from
impugned provisions on the
1 therefore, refrain from examining the validity of the
rouchstone of Arts. 14 and
21.
Juwenile Justice Act
218 Same Gender, Multiple Adoption vis-a-vis
significant.9 The issue
Bombay High Court is extremely
Inthis context, a judgment of the provisions of the Hindu Adopions and Maintenance
involved was the interpretation of the and Protection of Children) Act, 2000as amended
Act, 1956 and the Juvenile Justice (Careabandoned children. The Juvenile Justice (Care and
in 2006 in the context of adoption of enacted to provide for rehabilitation of
orphaned,
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was adoption is one of the ways recognised by the
and
abandoned and surrendered childrenrehabilitation. had a
In this case, the petitioners already
Patiament to facilitate the object of female baby about five
rights in respect ofasurrendered
remained with them for four
daughter; they obtained guardianship
months old, after complying with
all the requirements. The child adopt that child. The court
filed an application to legally Maintenance Act,
years and thereafter, the petitioners
the Constitution, the Hindu Adoptions and
referred to various provisions in 2000 and the Convention
and Protection of Children) Act,
1956, the Juvenile Justice (Care ratified by India in 1992, and analysed them in great derail.
on the Rights of Child, which was to life under Article 21 of
the
adoption is a facet of the right
It observed, inter alia, that that this argument was invoked a few years back in the and che
context
Constitution, It may be recalled no provision for adoption
couple whose personal law has
ofadoption by a Christian
COurt accepted it.
Itheld: under Article 21. The right
to
constitutional right guaranteed
The right to adopt... is a make life meaningful...
things which
life includes those
8Bom 228, p 229. 228.
lkarni v UOI, AIR 1998 Bom
UO. AIR 1998 Bom 228.
 370 Family Law I
In Payal @Sharinee Vinay Pathaks case, the court held that the right to life
1S, on one hand the right of parents and individuals, men and women, who hat is
gIve meaning to their lives. Equally significant in the context of Juvenile seek to adopt asserted
Protection of Children) Act, 2000 the life that is Justice ty
children who are in need of special care and toprotection. Asspecially he(Care and
right protected js
to the embargo
on adoption of samne sex child by the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance that is ight &
Court held that this must give way to the statutory provisions in the Juvenile Act, 1956imposed
Protection of Children) Act, 2000. If the two pieces of legislation, both of Justice
by Parliament are harmoniously construed, there is no conflict of which (Care-the
are and
observed; and alternatively,
Hindu Adoptions and
even if
Maintenance
there
Act,
is a conflict, it is the later Act interpretation,
enacted
which will the court
1956 came in
and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. This is on the
1956
well-settled
and the Juvenile prevail (the
principle Justice
two Special Acts dealing with same subject matter, that
legislation which is enacted where t Caxe
will prevail. The court also clarified that general subeea
gender adoption will remain in force; the prohibition of the earlier Act
of Children) Act, 2000) simply
latter Act (Juvenile Justice
(Care and--1.e., same
creates an exception in the case of abandoned
parents in this case who already have Protecion
ofchitheldren.
a daughter and have obtained
question who fits the guardianship The
of the Juvenile Justicedescription of achild in need of care and protection
protection u child in
ander section 41(2), is eligibleandforProtection of Children) Act, 2000 and ofunder section 2,d)
(Care
parentsof Sharinee (Paya) with
adoption. Petitioners were accordingly surrendered child
declared adopt
all rights and consequences under law.
2dnntive
In Secretary Subbandra Mahatab
two minor girls
Seva Sadan Kolathia v State
who were esiblings, of Orissa, $9
abandoned childrenalso,rescued
Adoption Placement Agency was allowed. They were adoption af
of Children) under section 41(4) of the bv ihe
and free
Act, 2002 (JJA); they were declared Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
for adoption. The by the Child Welfare
siblings and petitioner, after Committee tobe fit
dismissed
thus capable and competent executing a foster care agreement was rearing the
two girl
the application on the ground under the law to
that in view adopt. The District Court however,
children of
positive view andcould not be
held that adopted. Hence the appeal.
the bar in section 16 of the HAMA,
the provisions of the
the
even though
HAMA (section 9(4))
the petition wasThe high court took a realistic and
nomenclatured to be one
The requirements
trial court
for grant of permission for
but
such
in substance, it was filed under JA.undeA
HAMA was order declaring petitioner adoption under the IJA had beenthe satisied.
two differentheld to be not proper. The girls ineligible to adopt two girls under
of the JJA families. The trial could
and Sectoun t0
not be
of both thein section 41 thereof andcourt, ought to have kept separated
in mind the givenofintheaurionts
HAMA was girls in the family of the allowed the application for rehabilitation
consequently
spirit provisos
held, to bepetitioner
no bar in
lady, the appellate and reintegration
court held. Section 11 of the
8.2.2.19 Adoption by allowing the
 Chapter 8--Adoption 371
mother's name, on the ground that an adoprion by proxy was not valid in Indian law. Later on,
however, in the written statement, the defendant agreed that the Law Ministry had clarified
could be given
and/ortaken in adoption by "under their
chat the childHowever,
authority", they raised afresh objection parents ormother
that the adoptive guardian,
having remarried,
che had no authority to adopt, and so passport for the child with the adoptive mother's name
could not be issued. Againstthis, the mother came to the court. After going through the facts,
ould not eto the conclusion that tne respondents plea was untenable, as the
in 1994. whereas the adoption took place in
adoptive
she had che capacity to take the child in adoption, and1990.
had remarried on themarriage
date of
mother
cheadoption, her Thus,
subsequent
cannot.invalidatethe adoption. The adopted daughter was consequently held to be entitled to
passport
with of the adoptive mother inserted in it.
the name
a new
823 Prohibition of Consideration in Respect of Adoption
check trafficking of. children, the Act prohibits taking or giving of any
In oraein consideration of adoption. This issue came up for consideration payments
before the
Supreme Court in JV Vijaya Bhastiar vJ Kesava Rao.3 The validity of an ante-adoption
plaintiff, i.e., adopted son and the adoptive parents, was
agreement between the
aprcoed. Under the terms of the agreement, it was provided that the adoptedsoughtson willto
not set up any claim with regard to certain properties belonging to the adopive family. Prior
oadoption, the sonhad no right whatsoever in these properties. In fact, the plaintiff was
being fostered by the adoptive father and his wife for five years prior to the adopion. The
fthe adoptive father had transferred various properties in favour of the adopted son
bar five years prior to adoption. By an agreemnt prior to adoprion, the plainuiff agreed
to claim any interest in some properties of his adoptive father. Subsequendly, che plainiff
bda suit for partition in respect of these properties also, which were mentioned in the ante
sdotion agreement. The plaintift being a major at the time of adoption, the genuineness of
the agreementwas not challenged -the challenge was, as to the validity of the agreement, on
he oround that it was hit by section 17 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Iwas argued, that giving up of a right in property to which the plaintiff would have ocherwise
ben entitled to after adoption, would amount to payment or reward, or plaintiff agreeing to
male che payment or reward to his prospective adoptive father. This argument was, however,
rjected by the court. It was held, that the plaintiff had no right in those properties at the time
of the agreement, so chere was no question of any payment or agrement to make payment
by the plaintiff to his would-be adoptive father. Such question would have arisen only if the
pantit had any right in the property.There was, thus, no question of any trafficking and the
aeadoption agreement was held to be valid.
5 Parsi Law
As pointed out at the very outset, the only personal law which permits adoption under statute
isthe Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance. Act, 1956, analysed above. There are no other laws
fnorerning people belonging to other religions or communities. The Parsis, who are governed
Indian
their Act, 1936, and Part III of the
Sucessiopersonal law by have
n Act, 1925, the Parsi Marriage
Marriagefor
no provision Divorce
andadoption. There is, howevet, acustomary form
M
adopion prevalent amongst the Parsis, known as palak. Under this custom, the widow of
 372
Family Law I
a childless Parsi can adopt a child on the fourth
purpose of pertorming certain annual
rights. religious day of her husband's
ceremonies. This child death,
8.4 Muslim Law
Amongst the
simgy or:
Muslims,
Application Act, 1937,there is no
which specific law of adoption. The Muslim
provides two different
lists of regulates the scope and
subjects
of India
other list
will be governed by the law of-one Islam, specitying
jurisdiction
mattets in regard
of Per1Slsaornalmi c
Law
means of referring
a
to those subjects in
any contrary custom to aw
declaration, the declarationregard to which a Muslim in Ih
subsequent
no
if he can statute to which a Muslim
being
There is, descendants. Under this list, binding on the makers opt Bor the
may adopt however, adoption is one
can
notwithstanding%
of the threemine. law
In this context, a
prove the existence of a customseeking adoption may mnatters and hildren lslarn'y
petition requesting judgment of the Supreme Courtpermitting adoption. resort to, Tmenione
right, is significant.
court to
While
declare the
the court headed right to adoptdelivered on
and to be activist thonge
accept this plea,
2015 JJ Act, it clarified that the Juvenile then Chief Justice, P'
by adopted as Shabnam
2015 would 2015) allowed people
optional legislation, continue to allow adoption
belonging
Justice
to any
(Care and
religion, toProtection
SachasivanfundamestÀ
of J, did
until a uniform to any
civil code person submitting to child. The A.
adopt a Childrea)
was achieved, the
Y5 Christian Law the court ruled 6proISIOns of Ac.tie
As regards the
Indian Divorce Christians and their right to
Act, 1869 adoption, the
deal with Christian
(as amended in 2001), and Christian Marriage Act,
the
should be no bar to family law, make no mention of adoption. Indian Succession Act, 1925,1872, be
is a queer adoption. In this context, Philips
If a custom can be proved
enabling judgment where, in spite of
Christians to adopt a child, theabsence of any
Alfred
law or
Malvin vVJ Gonsalues" hoNER
alleged existence
In this case, court of any custm
suit for
a couple
partition
"adopted a child with thelegally recognised
help of the the validityof an "adopnin.
and
left by the Church. The "adopted' chid ikl
his share in the property
alleged that the petitioner
was resisted by the was adopted by the deceased and deceased, who died intestate. Itws
adoption under thenatural born children of the deceased, onbrought up as his
the ground that there son. The petitn
of their father. The Christian law, and that the petitioner
issues had no right to claim thecouldpropery be n
Christian law, and if before the court were: whether there could
so, be an adoption under tt
interesting to note that thewhat court
are the
upheld
rights
the
of the child over the
property of the deceased?ls
adoption, and the adoption. It held that the Christian law recogna
was thus held to beadopted child has the same
entitled to the property ofrights as a natural born child. The pet
the court, the deceased According
the right to adopt is inherent adoptive
in the right to life guaranteed parents.
remarked 98 under Aru
The right of a
Article 21. The couple to
right to life includes those
adopt a son is a constitutional right guaranteodu
Law, Mohammedan Law and Canon Law
things, which make life meaningful. The
Hindu
recognize adoption.
 373
Chapter 8--Adoption
Andfurther:99
Simply because there is no separate statute providing for adoption, it cannot be said that
-be adoption made by the Correa couple is invalid. Since the adopted son gets all the rights
fa natural born child, he is entitled to inherit the assets of George Corea couple.
8 6C o n c l u s i o n
Maintenance Act,
India is the Hindu Adoptions and
Theonly statute governing adoption in Protection of Children) Act, 2000 have
some provisions for
1056(The Juvenile Justice Care and and Maintenance
context). Though it (Hindu Adoptions
dontion but these are in a different numerous loopholes. It has a clear
law in several aspects, it has adoption.
Act. 2000) has liberalised the adopted; and take
and onlya Hindu can give consulted.l00 in
lioious bias, as only a Hindu can be
Besides,
converts need not even be
Aconvert loses all
rights, and a spouse who the child, since there is no provision to
the interest and welfare of adopt; nor any
he Act has little regard for suitability and antecedents of
the family seeking towishes to adopt
investigate and look into the
: Besides, a foreigner who
follow-up to ascertain how
the child is being treated. Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for
apply under the take he child out
cannot doso under
this Act. He has to seek court permission
to
and has to They have
guardian of such child, get are very limited.
being appointed rights which children
under this Act, the and not parents.
of India.l01 Moreover, Similarly, those who adopt are only guardians Thousands of abandoned,
inheritance rights. on adoption. but in
for a uniform law couples wish to adopt,desiring
no
cherefore, a need innumerable
There is,
neglected children
need families and homeless and people
orphaned and children remain
provisions, the far been futile.
satisfactory legal have however, so
the absenceof attempts to enact such law
cannot do so. AIl
to adopt, T Adoption