| Case Name | Section | Rule(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti | 7 | Consent of wife is necessary for valid adoption by male. | In this case, a Hindu male adopted a child without taking consent of his wife. The issue was whether such adoption is valid. The Supreme Court held that consent of the wife is mandatory unless she is disqualified. Without consent, adoption is not valid. The purpose is to protect rights of the wife. This case highlights the importance of consent in adoption. |
| Guradas v. Rasaranjan | 6 11 | Actual giving and taking of child is essential for valid adoption. | In this case, the court examined whether adoption took place properly. There was a claim of adoption without clear ceremony. The court held that actual transfer of child (giving and taking) is essential. Mere intention or document is not enough. The ceremony shows real transfer of the child. Without it, adoption is not valid. This case explains the importance of formal process. |
| Ankush Narayan v. Janabai | 12 | Adopted child gets same rights as natural child. | In this case, the issue was about rights of an adopted child in property. The court held that once adoption is valid, the child becomes part of adoptive family. The child gets same rights as a natural child. The child can inherit property. This case confirms equal status of adopted children. |
| Prafulla Bala Mukherjee v. Satish Chandra Mukherjee | 16 | Living together is not proof of valid adoption. | In this case, adoption was claimed based on long cohabitation. The court examined whether this proves adoption. It held that living together is not enough. Proper legal requirements must be fulfilled. There must be clear evidence of giving and taking. This case stresses need for strict proof. |
| Doctor Nahak v. Bhika Nahali | 16 | Strong proof is required to prove adoption. | In this case, adoption was disputed by parties. The court examined the evidence carefully. It held that adoption must be proved with clear and strong evidence. Since adoption changes family rights, strict proof is needed. Weak evidence is not enough. This case highlights evidentiary requirement. |
| Smt. Laliha Ubhayakar v. Union of India | 8 | Restrictions on female adoption upheld as valid law. | In this case, certain provisions restricting adoption by married women were challenged. The court examined whether such restrictions are valid. It held that the law is valid and reasonable. The restrictions are part of personal law system. This case supports validity of the Act. |
| Kondiba Rama Papal v. Narayan Kondiba Papal | 11 | Adoption must satisfy all legal conditions. | In this case, adoption was challenged due to non-compliance with conditions. The court examined requirements like age, consent, and ceremony. It held that all conditions must be satisfied. If any essential condition is missing, adoption is invalid. This case reinforces strict compliance rule. |
| Chandrashekhara v. Kulandaivelu | 15 | Valid adoption cannot be cancelled. | In this case, a party tried to cancel a completed adoption. The court examined whether this is allowed. It held that once adoption is valid, it is final. It cannot be cancelled by parties. This ensures stability in family relations. This case explains permanence of adoption. |
| V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy | 18 | Maintenance rights must be interpreted broadly for benefit of women. | This case dealt with maintenance rights of a Hindu female. The court examined scope of maintenance provisions. It held that such provisions should be interpreted widely. The aim is to provide support and dignity. The court granted relief considering social justice. This case supports welfare approach in maintenance law. |
| Sushila Devi Rampura v. Income Tax Officer | 20 | Maintenance obligations extend to dependents. | In this case, the issue was whether maintenance payments affect tax liability. The court examined nature of maintenance. It held that maintenance is a legal obligation. It includes support for dependents. This case clarifies scope of maintenance duties. |
Case Name
Sawan Ram v. Kalawanti
Section
7
Rule(s)
Consent of wife is necessary for valid adoption by male.
Case Brief
In this case, a Hindu male adopted a child without taking consent of his wife. The issue was whether such adoption is valid. The Supreme Court held that consent of the wife is mandatory unless she is disqualified. Without consent, adoption is not valid. The purpose is to protect rights of the wife. This case highlights the importance of consent in adoption.
Case Name
Guradas v. Rasaranjan
Section
6
11
11
Rule(s)
Actual giving and taking of child is essential for valid adoption.
Case Brief
In this case, the court examined whether adoption took place properly. There was a claim of adoption without clear ceremony. The court held that actual transfer of child (giving and taking) is essential. Mere intention or document is not enough. The ceremony shows real transfer of the child. Without it, adoption is not valid. This case explains the importance of formal process.
Case Name
Ankush Narayan v. Janabai
Section
12
Rule(s)
Adopted child gets same rights as natural child.
Case Brief
In this case, the issue was about rights of an adopted child in property. The court held that once adoption is valid, the child becomes part of adoptive family. The child gets same rights as a natural child. The child can inherit property. This case confirms equal status of adopted children.
Case Name
Prafulla Bala Mukherjee v. Satish Chandra Mukherjee
Section
16
Rule(s)
Living together is not proof of valid adoption.
Case Brief
In this case, adoption was claimed based on long cohabitation. The court examined whether this proves adoption. It held that living together is not enough. Proper legal requirements must be fulfilled. There must be clear evidence of giving and taking. This case stresses need for strict proof.
Case Name
Doctor Nahak v. Bhika Nahali
Section
16
Rule(s)
Strong proof is required to prove adoption.
Case Brief
In this case, adoption was disputed by parties. The court examined the evidence carefully. It held that adoption must be proved with clear and strong evidence. Since adoption changes family rights, strict proof is needed. Weak evidence is not enough. This case highlights evidentiary requirement.
Case Name
Smt. Laliha Ubhayakar v. Union of India
Section
8
Rule(s)
Restrictions on female adoption upheld as valid law.
Case Brief
In this case, certain provisions restricting adoption by married women were challenged. The court examined whether such restrictions are valid. It held that the law is valid and reasonable. The restrictions are part of personal law system. This case supports validity of the Act.
Case Name
Kondiba Rama Papal v. Narayan Kondiba Papal
Section
11
Rule(s)
Adoption must satisfy all legal conditions.
Case Brief
In this case, adoption was challenged due to non-compliance with conditions. The court examined requirements like age, consent, and ceremony. It held that all conditions must be satisfied. If any essential condition is missing, adoption is invalid. This case reinforces strict compliance rule.
Case Name
Chandrashekhara v. Kulandaivelu
Section
15
Rule(s)
Valid adoption cannot be cancelled.
Case Brief
In this case, a party tried to cancel a completed adoption. The court examined whether this is allowed. It held that once adoption is valid, it is final. It cannot be cancelled by parties. This ensures stability in family relations. This case explains permanence of adoption.
Case Name
V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy
Section
18
Rule(s)
Maintenance rights must be interpreted broadly for benefit of women.
Case Brief
This case dealt with maintenance rights of a Hindu female. The court examined scope of maintenance provisions. It held that such provisions should be interpreted widely. The aim is to provide support and dignity. The court granted relief considering social justice. This case supports welfare approach in maintenance law.
Case Name
Sushila Devi Rampura v. Income Tax Officer
Section
20
Rule(s)
Maintenance obligations extend to dependents.
Case Brief
In this case, the issue was whether maintenance payments affect tax liability. The court examined nature of maintenance. It held that maintenance is a legal obligation. It includes support for dependents. This case clarifies scope of maintenance duties.