Q & A Forum Find a Lawyer Case Request Free Legal Templates Read Article Indian Kanoon e-Court fee Certified Copy Easy Office
Loading
We make advocacy simple for you Ask a question Consult a Lawyer Login | info@easyadvocacy.com

Section - 7. Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption


Any male Hindu who is sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption:
PROVIDED that, if he has a wife living, he shall not adopt except with the consent of his wife unless the wife 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.
Explanation: If a person has more than one wife living at the time of adoption, the consent of all the wives is necessary unless the consent of any one of the them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in the preceding proviso.

COMMENTS
The person taking in adoption must not suffer from idiocy or insanity; he must have the capacity enough to understand the nature of the Act and what would be the legal effects of adoption . Simultaneously it is not the requirement the person concerned must be possessed with a very high degree of intelligence. There is a very strong presumption favouring soundness of mind.-Babubarelal v. Gulzari Devi 1979 All LJ 1333
Deaf and dumb but possessed with the capacity to express through signs and gestures, though not clearly, is to be taken as a person of sound mind.-Ambrish Kumar v. Hatu Prasad 1981 HLR 781
Proviso places a restriction as concerned to right to take in adoption that makes the consent of the wife a necessity so as to make the adoption valid. The consent must be obtained prior to the civil adoption takes place and not later on where the proviso is disregarded adoption is not valid.-Badrilal v. Bheru 1986 (1) HLR 81.
In the case of divorce the consent is not necessary but in the case of judicial separation, consent would be necessary. In case of two wives, consent must be of both the wives despite the fact that one of them was not living under the same roof for a big job of twenty or thirty years.-Bhooloo Ram v. Ram Lal 1989 (2) HLR 162

 View Previous | View Next  

Ask your question from lawyers!

Ask your question from lawyers!

Ask anonymously