#016 HINDU ADOPTION ACT UNJUST TO WOMEN

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7764 of 2001
PETITIONER: Brijendra Singh
RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/01/2008
BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

STATUTE
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.
Section 8 of the Act reads as follows:
8. Capacity of a female Hindu to take in
adoption : Any female Hindu
(a) who is of sound mind,
(b) who is not minor, and
(c) who is not married, or if married,
whose marriage has been dissolved or whose
husband is dead or has completely and finally
renounced the world or has ceased to be a
Hindu or has been declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind,
has capacity to take a son or daughter in
adoption.

BRIEF THEME OF THE CASE
1948.
Crippled girl, having practically no legs.
Given in marriage to a man.
Reason: Comply with a village custom that every virgin girl should be married.
The husband abandoned her without consummation (marriage maturing into sexual union).
She lived in her birth village with her parents.
Taking pity her parents gave her 32 acres of land for her maintenance.

1970.
The lady adopted a son. The adopted son was looking her welfare.

1974.
The useless husband died.

1981.
The land fell under Madhya Pradesh Land Ceiling. The Revenue Authorities wanted to take over her excess land.

She would have been entitled to hold upto 54 acres of land, some land for herself and some land for her son.

The Revenue Authorities disbelieved adoption and contested the fact, stating that she was not a divorced woman and she did not have the legal capacity to adopt a son.

Now, the legal battle between her and the Sub Divisional Officer started.

July 1989.
She executed a registered will in favour of her adopted son.

Dec. 1989.
She died.

The trial court upheld the adoption made by her. The High Court reversed it.

The Supreme Court in the judgement discussed in length about her capacity to adopt a son, mostly jurisprudential jargon.

BLOGGER'S VIEWS
The Hindu adoption law is pro-male. In the instant case, the property in question, the lady did not inherit from her husband. It is a property which her parents gave.

Courts in India make substantial distinction between divorced women, and women living like divorced women. This distinction seems to be purely technical. Are facts NOT more important than technicalities?

The Court, in this case, has also discussed the distinction between adoptiong children for religious reasons (offering annual 'pindams' to ancestors, doing karma kaand`as etc.) and adopting children for secular reasons (passing on property to sons, their looking after the adopted parents).