Adoption is invalid if child actually not given and taken in adoption
Thereafter the child lives with his biological parents because the adoptive was illusory. The child thus claiming his right in
Actual or physical giving and taking of the child is an
In Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Rup Kanwar, (1962) 1 SCR 477 : AIR 1961 SC 1378; the Supreme Court observed that when adoptive father puts his hand on the head of foster son so as to receive the child in adoption, therefore, he sufficiently compliances with the Hindu law doctrine of “giving and taking”.
However, under section 16 of the said
Jai Singh vs Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634 A valid adoption requires that child must be given and taken by the parents or guardian concerned with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth to the family of its adoption.
The statutory provision of HAM Act had not been followed; therefore, it is invalid. The adoptive father is the sole guardian; consequently, he should live with his adoptive father.
But in your case, he has been living with his biological parents; therefore, this adoption is an act of deception in the eye of law because they not performed given and taken ceremony. The intention of the
In your case, adoptive mother had no such intention instead of it; she had the
Ask A Question
You can ask your question to Mr Shivendra Pratap Singh, (Advocate, High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
I worked for an MNC company as a Manager. Despite my good performances, my corrupt seniors 1st put me on the bench (no work) for an extended period as I refused to join their evil plans, denied me an assignment and then I was terminated as I refused to submit...
Sir, my great grandfather, had taken a lease from the government and he erected a house over it. We have to reside in the same home since from the beginning. No question has been raised by the government when I bequeathed this land along with the house from my father....
I am a retired government servant. A departmental proceeding was pending at the time of my retirement. Therefore, the competent authority had forfeited my gratuity without holding me guilty of proved misconduct. He presented ambiguous inquiry report which is forthwith...
I was a public servant and retired from the post of superintendent engineer. No departmental inquiry was set up against me for the alleged misappropriation of government fund from the state treasury. My pension and gratuity are stopped without any reasonable cause. It...
Get A Quick Advice
Book an appointment for 15 minutes and consult with an expert over the phone within minutes
Join Our Newsletter
Subscribe our newsletter to get our news as well as important legal updates of Supreme Court & High Courts