Can Indian Christians Adopt?

Currently the position in India is such that this question can neither be answered in the positive nor can it be answered in the negative. This is premised on the fact that there is no statute governing adoption amongst Christians and therefore the law is largely determined through diverse customs and conflicting judicial decisions. This question is further complicated due to diverse positions relating to adoptions in case of abandoned children, adoptions by guardians and adoption from original parents.


The customs in which Indian Christians are allowed to adopt are the agricultural tribes of Punjab (Sohan Lal V. A.Z. Makuin, AIR 1929 Lahore 230) and the Syrian Christians of Travancore, Kerala. (Rao Bahadur L.K. Anantakrishna Ayyar in “the Anthropology of Syrian Christians”.) On the other hand, customs in Goa have apparently considered adoption to be legally impermissible. (Carlos Tavora and Ors. v. Maria Felicidade Fernandes e Lobo and Ors.)

As far as judicial decisions are concerned, Bombay, Kerala, Karnataka (AIR 2007 Kant 121) and Rajasthan High Court (RLW 2008(4)Raj3409) have held that adoption is not prohibited amongst Indian Christians and in fact the Canon law permits it. In Allhabad High Court however, in Ajit Datt v. Mrs. Ethel Walters, G.P. Mathur, J. took the position that there is no custom amongst the Indian Christians that allows adoption. Even in countries like US and UK where there is a predominant Christian population adoption was permitted through statutes. Since in India there is no legislation permitting adoption amongst Christians, they cannot legally adopt.

The greater complexities arise when these courts discuss the question on formalities necessary for a valid adoption and the circumstances of the adoption. The Bombay High Court in the matter of Manuel Theodore D’souza laid down a principle in respect of abandoned children and it held, “In the absence of any legislation setting out who can adopt, person or persons who has/have taken a child in guardianship under the Guardians & Wards Act will have the right to petition the courts to adopt the child.” Thus the scope of this judgment is restricted to Indian Christians who have taken a child in guardianship and are seeking to adopt such child. The Kerala High Court in Maxin George v. Indian Oil Corporation, opines that among Christians also formalities of adoption takes place in the physical act of giving and taking of the child (like under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act). The same court however held in Philips Alfred Malvin v. Y.J. Gonsalvis  that the fact of adoption being mentioned in the baptism certificate constitutes valid adoption. Then there is also the Juvenile Justice Act, which permits Indian Christians to adopt but this again governs only institutional adoption.

In conclusion, the current position therefore is that most of the courts excluding one or two have held that according to custom Indian Christians may adopt. Christians can definitely adopt in the states of Maharashtra, Punjab, Kerala, Karnataka, and Rajasthan. In Maharashtra, Christians can adopt only after being guardians of the child and by petition to the court. In Kerala adoption in all cases is possible and various ceremonies may be considered valid like baptism, or physically giving and taking the child. With the entry of Juvenile Justice Act all Indian Christians can adopt institutionally as per the procedures prescribed in the Act.

It is time that the legislators step in and bring into force a legislation that will codify and unify the law governing adoptions amongst Indian Christians, so that there can be certainty in the area of intestate succession especially when the deceased leaves behind adopted children.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Competition Law - Presumption in Section 3(3) contd..

I have in my earlier posts,( here , here and here ) proposed argumets which may be made in favour of the the presumption being irrebuttable. I will now present the arguments  from the other side. Argument 1- Presumption Rebuttable . One of the principles of Interpretation of Statutes is that another statute may be referred to while interpreting a statute when the two are similar i.e. when they are statutes in pari materia  ( Harshad S. Mehta v. State of Maharashtra , (2001) 8 SCC 257) It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. A Vaidyanath Aiyer , AIR 1958 SC 61, that it is not necessary that the entire subject-matter in the two statutes should be identical before any provision in one may be held to be in pari materia with some provision in the other. In this case, Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 which directs that on proof that the accused has accepted any gratification other than the legal remuneration, it shall be presumed unless the con
Read more

NOMINEE v/s LEGAL HEIRS

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in its very recent decision, Harsha Nitin Kokate Vs. The Saraswat Co-op. Bank Limited & Others , held that position of a nominee under section 109A of the Companies Act is not merely that of a trustee for the estate of the deceased, and it further held that, "  on the death of the share holder, the nominee would become entitled to all rights in the shares to the exclusion of all other persons ." This means that, the nominee will be made the beneficial  owner thereof and all the rights incidental to ownership of shares would follow i.e. the right to transfer, pledge or hold the shares. The court based its decision on the express provisions of the section which provide as follows: ­S. 109A. Nomination of shares – (1) Every holder of shares in, or holder of debentures of a company may, at any time, nominate, in the prescribed manner, a person to whom his shares in or debentures of, the company shall vest in the event of his death. (2)
Read more

Retrospective Operation of PWDV Act

Amongst the many conflicting decisions arising out the application of Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act, one of them, is in respect of the operation of the Act. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the PWDV Act does not apply retrospectively and that an action under the Act can lie only if the acts of domestic violence are committed on or after 26 Oct 2006, i.e. the date on which the Act came into force. Similarly, a Delhi Metropolitan Court  and a JMFC in Goa also took the view that this Act will not be applicable if the acts complained of have been committed prior to the passing of the Act. On the other hand the Bombay High Court and Madras High Court have taken a different view. They held that, the court is competent to take cognizance of the act of domestic violence committed even prior to the Act came into force and pass necessary protection orders. The Act can be applied retrospectively to take cognizance of the act of violence alleged to have been committed
Read more