RAVINDRA v. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:13568-DB WP-6462-24Adoption.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6462 OF 2024Fulchand s/o Shankar Pawar @Fulchand s/o Lalu Jadhav,Age: 29 years, Occu: Student,R/o: Sarwadi, Ta.: Nilanga, Dist.: LaturPresently residing at : Gandhi Nagar Tanda,Dudhani, Ta.: Akkalkot, Dist.: Solapur… Petitioner Versus1.The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary,Revenue Department, Mantralaya,Mumbai – 400 0322.The District Collector,Latur, Ta. And Dist.: Latur3.The Tahsildar,Tahsil Office, NilangaTa.: Nilanga, Dist.: Latur4.The Coordinator (Incharge),State Reserved Police, Gut No.8, Goregaon (East), Mumbai-65.… Respondents .…Mr. K. P. Rodge, Advocate for the Petitioner,Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for the Respondents State..…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON PRONOUNCED ON ::02.07.202409.07.2024 1 of 25
Legal Reasoning
(( 23 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionand genuine beneficiaries. Therefore, contention of raised by thePetitioner is not acceptable to us. 23.Since, Respondent No. 3 conducted a detailed enquiry andrecorded statements of the Petitioner, his biological and adoptiveparents, so also, provided sufficient opportunity of hearing andconcluded that the Petitioner executed adoption deed with anintention to secure government job under the category reserved forEarthquake Affected Person, therefore, the Certificate of EarthquakeAffected person granted on 30-8-2022, has been revoked/ cancelled,which does not appear to be illegal, erroneous or bad in law. 24. Needless to say that, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were notparties to the suit bearing R.C.S. No. 725 of 2023. The RespondentNo.3 has not gone into the facts of compromise decree in respect ofadoption deed. Respondent No. 3 revoked the Earthquake Certificatedated 30.08.2022, which was issued in favour of the Petitioner on thebasis of adoption deed and compromise decree, on the groundsmentioned in the impugned order, referred herein above, byfollowing the guidelines framed in that regard. Since it prima facieappears that by misrepresentation and manipulation, the Petitioner 23 of 25 (( 24 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionexecuted adoption deed and obtained compromise decree, we do notfind that, Respondent no. 3 committed any illegality and nointerference is called for from this Court. 25.Further, during course of hearing, the Petitioner hasproduced a photocopy of his School Leaving Certificate dated 16thJune, 2013 issued by Shri Gurushant Lingeshwar Junior College,Dudhani, Distt. Solapur. The Petitioner also produced the photocopyof his Aadhar Card. The School leaving certificate and Aadhar Cardindicate the Petitioner’s date of birth as 20th August, 1994. Thealleged adoption deed was executed on 18th April, 2022. Therefore,this itself proves that on the date of execution of the adoption deed,the Petitioner was 27 old, which is not permissible under section10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Not onlythis but soon after execution of adoption deed, the Petitioner had filedsuit for declaration, which came to be compromised within a span of 5days, which certainly falls under shadow of doubt and obtained acertificate of Earthquake Affected person. Therefore, conduct of thePetitioner itself appears doubtful and he has manipulated theAdoption Deed and compromise decree from the Court just to secureGovernment job under reservation of Earthquake Affected person. 24 of 25 (( 25 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionFurther, though the Petitioner claimed that, in the year 2005, adoptionceremony was took place but the school & education record of thepetitioner reflect names of his biological father. So also, the Petitionerhimself presented this Petition disclosing name of his biological father.If really, the Petitioner could have been adopted by his adoptiveparents in that event, he would not tag the name of his biologicalfather. 26. In view of above discussion, it cannot be held that theRespondent No. 3 erred in passing impugned order dated 6th June,2024 and no perversity is found. Therefore, present Petition is herebydismissed. Accordingly, Rule discharged. 27.We could have imposed costs on the Petitioner, in order tosend out a clear message to the public at large. However, the learnedAdvocate for the Petitioner prayed for leniency contending that thePetitioner is a student. Hence, we are not imposing costs. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]JPChavan 25 of 25
Arguments
(( 2 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionJUDGMENT (Per : Y. G. Khobragade, J.) :- 1.Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, the learned Assistant GovernmentPleader appears on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With Consent ofboth sides matter is heard finally at the admission stage. 3.By the present Petition, the Petitioner has put forth prayerclauses C & D as under:“(C) By issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriatewrit order or direction in the like nature, the circulardated 31.05.2023 issued by respondent No.2 – Collectorand the impugned order dated 06.06.2024 passed byrespondent No.3 – Tahsildar, thereby cancelling theCertificate of Earthquake Affected Person dated30.08.2022 issued in favour of the Petitioner be quashedand set aside;(D)By issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriatewrit order or direction in the like nature, respondent No.4be directed to issue appointment order to the Petitioner asper his selection to the post of Police Constable (Armed)from the Earthquake Affected Persons (open) category.” 2 of 25 (( 3 ))WP-6462-24Adoption4.In short, it is the story of the Petitioner that, he isbiological son of Shri Shankar Ramu Pawar and Sau. Gunbai ShankarPawar, R/o Dudhani, Tq. Akkalkot Distt. Solapur. On 18-04-2022, hisbiological parents gave him in adoption to Shri Lalu Shivram Jadhavand Sau. Narsabai Lalu Jadhav under the registered adoption deedexecuted before the Sub-Registrar Nilanga, Dist. Latur. At the time ofadoption, he was 10 years old. The adoption ceremony was followedby rituals in vogue and as per provisions of Hindu Adoption andMaintenance Act, 1956. Since the day of adoption ceremony, hestarted residing with his adoptive parents, however, due to somequarrel, his adoptive parents denied to recognize his status as anadoptive son. Therefore, he filed a Regular Civil Suit No. 725 of 2022before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Nilanga against his adoptiveparents and prayed for declaration of his status as adopted son.During pendency of Suit, he and his adoptive parents entered intocompromise and matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat forsettlement of dispute. Since, the dispute was settled, a CompromiseDecree was passed as per deed of compromise. Thereafter, thePetitioner approached with Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar for issuanceof certificate of Earthquake Affected Person on the basis of Adoption 3 of 25 (( 4 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionDeed and Compromise Decree passed in RCS 725 of 2022.Accordingly, the Respondent no. 3 issued a certificate certifying thatthe Petitioner is an adopted son of his adoptive parents, theEarthquake Affected Persons, and he is entitled for reservation undersaid quota in the Government Service.5.Mr. K.P. Rogde, the learned Counsel for the Petitionercanvassed that the present Respondent No. 4 has published anAdvertisement for filing up of 75 post of Police Constables (Armed) inthe State of Maharashtra wherein, one post was reserved forEarthquake Affected Persons Category. Therefore, the Petitionersubmitted his candidature through online process. After due scrutiny,the Petitioner was found eligible for the said post. He was called forphysical test and written test, in which he succeeded. Thereafter, hewas called upon for verification of documents and was selected for thepost of Police Constable (Armed). Then, he appeared before J.J.Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai for Medical examination, wherein, he wasdeclared medically fit. However, on 06-06-2024, Respondent No. 3,Tahsildar called upon the Petitioner, his adoptive parents as well as hisnatural parents for verification of veracity of the Certificate ofEarthquake Affected Person issued by the then Tahsildar on 4 of 25 (( 5 ))WP-6462-24Adoption30.08.2022. Respondent No. 3- Tahsildar, after conducting a hearing,revoked/cancelled said certificate, therefore, no appointment orderhas been issued in his favour. Hence, the Petitioner is under anapprehension that his selection may be cancelled by Respondent No.4.6.The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitsthat, Respondent No. 2 Collector, Latur, issued a Circular dated31.05.2023 and instructed all the S.D.Os., and all Tahsildar in LaturDistrict to follow guidelines while issuing a Certificate of EarthquakeAffected Person or Project Affected Person in favour of an adoptedson. Clause 3 of said Circular provides guidelines for issuance ofCertificate of Earthquake Affected Person or Project Affected Person asper Government Resolution dated 20th March, 1997, which does notmake difference between real son and adopted son. Therefore, it iscontended that once the Petitioner’s adoptive parents executedAdoption Deed and the competent Court passed the compromisedecree, declaring that the Petitioner is adopted son of Shri ShankarRamu Pawar, who is Earthquake Affected Person, Respondent No. 3 ishaving no power/authority to revoke the certificate dated 30-08-2022granted in his favour. However, Respondent No. 3, at his own accord, 5 of 25 (( 6 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionconducted enquiry without any complaint by anybody. 7.It is further canvassed that, the learned Civil Judge SeniorDivision, Nilanga passed the compromise decree as per compromiseterms arrived at between the Petitioner and his adoptive parents andconfirmed the status of the Petitioner as adoptive son. Therefore,Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar is not empowered to revoke/cancelEarthquake Affected Person Certificate as per Circular dated31.05.2023 issued by Respondent No. 2, Collector. Therefore,impugned order dated 06.06.2024 is illegal and bad in law, hence,prayed to quash and set aside the same.8.The learned counsel for the Petitioner further canvassedthat Respondent No. 2, Collector has no power to issue Circular dated31.05.2023 overriding provisions of Hindu Adoption and MaintenanceAct, 1956, therefore, said Circular is contrary to law and issuedwithout jurisdiction, thus it is liable to be quashed and set aside.9.It further canvass that, Respondent No. 2 Collector orRespondent No. 3 Tahsildar has no authority to decide legality andvalidity of the Adoption Deed and/or the decree of Civil Court. 6 of 25 (( 7 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionTherefore, the certificate of Earthquake Affected Person granted on30.08.2022 in favour of the Petitioner on the basis of CompromiseDecree dated 07.05.2022 passed in R.C.S. No. 725 of 2022 as well asRegistered Adoption Deed dated 14.04.2022 is not revocable underthe guise of review. Therefore, impugned order of cancellation of thecertificate is per se illegal.10.To buttress his submissions, the learned relied onfollowing judicial pronouncements viz., (i) (2011) 13 S C C 99Secretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala And Others. Vs. Shivaji Bhagwat Moreand Others (ii) 2013 SCC OnLine Bom. 1032 =(2013) 5 Mah. LJ 827Mihir Ramesh Vora Vs. Union Of India.11.Per Contra, the learned AGP supported impugned orderand canvassed that the alleged Deed of Adoption was executed beforethe Sub-Registrar, Nilanga. At the time of Adoption, the Petitioner wasmore than 27 years of age. Sec. 10(iv) of Hindu Adoption andMaintenance Act, 1956 does not permit the adoption of Child of morethan fifteen years. Therefore, said adoption deed itself is illegal andbad in law. So also, the adoption deed allegedly executed before thesub-Registrar on 18.04.2022 and thereafter, within period of 14 days 7 of 25 (( 8 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionfrom execution of Adoption Deed, the Petitioner had filed a suitbearing R.C.S. No. 725 of 2022 on 02nd May, 2022 before the CivilJudge, Senior Division and prayed for decree of declaration that he isadopted son of the defendants therein (adoptive parents). The groundraised was that due to some quarrel, his adoptive parents denied hisstatus as adopted son. Thereafter, immediately on 6th May, 2022, thepresent Petitioner (Plaintiff) and his adoptive parents (Defendants) insaid suit entered into compromise Deed and placed the matter beforethe Lok-Adalat held and Compromise Decree came to be passed on07th May, 2022. Thereafter, on the basis of Deed of Adoption andCompromise Decree, the Petitioner secured an Earthquake AffectedCertificate dated 30-08-2022 and got selected for the post of PoliceConstable (Armed) with Respondent No.4. After the said certificatewas referred for verification, Respondent No. 3 issued notices to theconcerned and after examining the witnesses, impugned order dated06.06.2024 has been passed, which is legal and appropriate, hence,prayed for dismissal of the Petition.FINDINGS12.It is not in dispute that, the Petitioner is a biological son ofShri Shankar Ramu Pawar and Sau. Gunbai Shankar Pawar,R/o 8 of 25 (( 9 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionDudhani, Tq. Akkalkot Dist. Solapur. Shri Lalu Shivram Jadhav andSau. Narsabai Lalu Jadhav, who are now aged about 72 and 67respectively are the resident of Village Sarvadi, Tq. Nilanga, Dist.Latur. Neither the Petitioner nor his biological parents are bloodrelatives of adoptive parents. The Petitioner has placed on record thecopy of Adoption Deed dated 18.04.2022, registered with the Office ofSub-Registrar, Nilanga, Dist. Latur, wherein it is stated that allegedadoptive father is having two daughters and they wanted to adopt thePetitioner, so they adopted him when he was 10 years old. Theadoption ceremony had already taken place on the eve of Gudipadvain the year 2005 as per Hindu customs. Thereafter, he started residingwith his adoptive parents, however, his adoptive parents denied hisstatus as adoptive son due to differences between them, therefore, hefiled a suit bearing R.C.S. No. 725 of 2022, which has beencompromised in National Lok-Adalat. Accordingly, the learned TrialCourt passed the compromise Decree on 7th May, 2022. Thereafter,the Petitioner succeeded to obtain a Certificate of Earthquake Affectedperson on 30th August, 2022 on the basis of Registered AdoptionDeed dated 18.4.2022 and compromise decree dated 7th May, 2022.Indeed, the Petitioner got selected for the post of Constable (Armed) 9 of 25 (( 10 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionfrom the reserved category of Earthquake Affected Person showingthat he is adoptive son of earthquake affected person.13.Needless to say that, on 31.05.2023, Respondent No. 1,Collector has issued a Circular and provided guidelines for issuance ofcertificate for Earthquake Affected Persons that, many persons arepretending adoptive son of Earthquake Affected Persons and obtainingsuch certificates under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act,1956, therefore, Earthquake Affected Persons certificates can only beissued after completion of Court proceeding for adoption. So also,Earthquake Affected Person could have adopted the child below theage of 15 years. However, many persons have obtained certificates byshowing that, they are adopted by the Earthquake Affected Person andthey used to file Court proceeding for declaration that after adoptionsome quarrel took place and subsequently they settle their dispute byfiling compromise deed and thereby secures Government job.Therefore, to curtail such practice, Respondent No. 2 framed certainguidelines in Para 9 to 10.7, which provides as under:"९. हिं(cid:3)दूदत्तकवनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)अधि(cid:15)नि(cid:10)यम, १९५६भ(cid:11)गदो(cid:10)म(cid:15)ीलकलम५ ते१७म(cid:15)ीलदत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:11)चेतरतुदींप्रम(cid:11)णेदत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)सि$ध्द(cid:3)ोतेकी(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:3)ी 10 of 25 (( 11 ))WP-6462-24Adoption य(cid:11)ंचीख(cid:11)त्रीकरणेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े.१०. दत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)ल(cid:11)भूकंपग्रस्तप्रम(cid:11)णपत्रनि(cid:10)ग(cid:12)निमतकरत(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:10)ोंदणीकृत दत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)वन्य(cid:11)य(cid:11)लयी(cid:10)आदेश(cid:11)बरोबरचअर्जा(cid:11)(cid:12)ची$निवस्तर स्थ(cid:11)नि(cid:10)कचौकशी(cid:3)ोणे आवश्यकआ(cid:3)े. त्य(cid:11)$(cid:11)ठीख(cid:11)लील$ूच(cid:10)(cid:11)नि(cid:10)ग(cid:12)निमतकरण्य(cid:11)तयेतआ(cid:3)े.१०. १ हिं(cid:3)दूदत्तकवनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)(cid:12)(cid:3)अधि(cid:15)नि(cid:10)यम, १९५६म(cid:15)ीलकलम१० उपकलम(च(cid:11)र) म(cid:15)ीलतरतुदीं(cid:10)ु$(cid:11)रदत्तकमुल(cid:11)चेवय१५वर्षा(cid:11)(cid:12)पेक्ष(cid:11)कमीअ$णे आवश्यकआ(cid:3)े. दत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)चेदत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)निव(cid:15)ी$मयीवय(cid:11)चीख(cid:11)त्रीकरणे अनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े.१०. २ दत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)चेर्जान्मद(cid:11)तेम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत(cid:11)वदत्तकम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत(cid:11)(cid:3)े $व(cid:12)$(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:11)रणपणेएकमेक(cid:11)ंचेर्जावळचेरक्त(cid:11)चे(cid:10)(cid:11)तेव(cid:11)ईकअ$त(cid:11)तवएक(cid:11)चर्जा(cid:11)तीचेअ$त(cid:11)त. य(cid:11)चीख(cid:11)त्रीकरणेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े.१०. ३ हिं(cid:3)दू(cid:15)(cid:11)र्मिमकरूढीपरंपरे(cid:10)ु$(cid:11)रनिव(cid:15)ीवतदत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)(cid:3)ोणेआवश्यकआ(cid:3)े. य(cid:11)$(cid:11)ठीय(cid:11)निव(cid:15)ीचेपौरोनि(cid:3)त्यकरण(cid:11)- य(cid:11)पुरोनि(cid:3)त(cid:11)च(cid:11)र्जाब(cid:11)ब(cid:10)ोंदनिवणेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े.१०. ४ य(cid:11)दत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)निव(cid:15)ी$उपस्थिस्थतदत्तकम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)चे(cid:10)(cid:11)तेव(cid:11)ईकव दत्तकदेण(cid:11)- य(cid:11)म(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)चे(cid:10)(cid:11)तेव(cid:11)ईक(cid:11)ंचेर्जाब(cid:11)बघेणेआवश्यकआ(cid:3)े. त$ेचदत्तक म(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)ंच्य(cid:11)मुलींच(cid:11)र्जाब(cid:11)बघेणेआवश्यकआ(cid:3)े.१०. ५ अ$(cid:11)दत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)निव(cid:15)ीज्य(cid:11)ंच्य(cid:11)उपस्थिस्थतीतझ(cid:11)ल(cid:11)(cid:3)ोत(cid:11)अ$े 11 of 25 (( 12 ))WP-6462-24Adoption ग(cid:11)व(cid:11)तीलपंच(cid:11)ची$(cid:11)क्षआवश्यकआ(cid:3)े.१०. ६ अश्य(cid:11)दत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)निव(cid:15)ी(cid:10)ंतरदत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)चेव(cid:11)स्तव्यदत्तक निव(cid:15)ी(cid:10)ंतरदत्तकम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)कडेअ$णेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े.१०. ७ दत्तकनिव(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:10)निव(cid:15)ी(cid:10)ंतरदत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)$दत्तकम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)चे(cid:10)(cid:11)ंव (cid:15)(cid:11)रणकरणेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े. त्य(cid:11)मुळेदत्तकपुत्र(cid:11)चेशिशक्षणघेतअ$ेलतरत्य(cid:11)चे श(cid:11)ळेच(cid:11)अशिभलेख(cid:11)तील(cid:10)ोंदीतदत्तकम(cid:11)त(cid:11)निपत्य(cid:11)चे(cid:10)(cid:11)वअ$णेआवश्यकआ(cid:3)े. य(cid:11)चीख(cid:11)त्रीकरणेअनि(cid:10)व(cid:11)य(cid:12)आ(cid:3)े."14.As per the directions of Respondent No. 2 Collector,Respondent No. 3, Tahsildar Nilanga initiated review in respect ofCertificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and issued notices tobiological parents, adoptive parents of the Petitioner and others.Accordingly, Respondent No. 3 provided opportunity of hearing andrecorded their statements as well as examined the document Nos. 1to 6 as described in order dated 06.06.2024. On perusal of impugnedorder it reveals that, (i) at the time of adoption, the Petitioner wasmore than 15 years of age; (ii) as per Compromise deed, the Petitionerwas 22 years of age; (iii) there is no blood relation between thePetitioner and his adoptive parents; (iv) the Petitioner has notobtained Aadhar Card, School Record in his adoptive parents' name 12 of 25 (( 13 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionand (v) Neither the relatives of adoptive parents nor the relatives ofparents who gave him in adoption (biological parents) were presentat the time of adoption ceremony. Therefore, Respondent No.3cancelled/revoked Earthquake Affected Certificate dated 18.04.2022. 15.Sections 10 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and MaintenanceAct, 1956 provides as under:10. Persons who may be adopted.No person shall be―capable of being taken in adoption unless the followingconditions are fulfilled, namely:(i) he or she is a Hindu;(ii) he or she has not already been adopted;(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is acustom or usage applicable to the parties which permits personswho are married being taken in adoption;(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteenyears, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the partieswhich permits persons who have completed the age of fifteenyears being taken in adoption.11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.In every―adoption, the following conditions must be complied with: (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father ormother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hinduson’s son or son’s son’s son (whether by legitimate bloodrelationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive 13 of 25 (( 14 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionfather or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have aHindu daughter or son’s daughter (whether by legitimate bloodrelationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;(iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to beadopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-oneyears older than the person to be adopted;(iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to beadopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-oneyears older than the person to be adopted;(v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneouslyby two or more persons;(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually givenand taken in adoptionby the parents or guardian concerned orunder their authority with intent to transfer the child from thefamily of its birth 1[or in the case of an abandoned child or achild whose parentage is not known, from the place or familywhere it has been brought up] to the family of its adoption:Provided that the performance of datta homamshall not be essential to the validity of an adoption.16. It is needless to say that, adoption is the process in whichadoptive parents take personal responsibility for a child who is nottheir biological child. Through this process, the child becomes a lawfulchild of the parents who adopted them. They have privileges,responsibilities and rights attached to the child. 17.In case of Dhanraj Vs Smt. Surajbai, AIR 1975 SC 1103, 14 of 25 (( 15 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionthe Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “the use of the word "child" inclause (vi) of section 11 and in section 9(1) read in contrary-distinction of the use of word "person" in clause (iii) of section 6would make it clear, counsel submitted, that the condition of giving inadoption is applicable only to a minor child and not to an adult. Wesee no substance in this argument. Under the law as engraved insection 10 of the Act, a person is not capable of being taken inadoption if he or she has completed the age of 15 years and that is thereason that the word "child" has been used in sections 9 and 11. Theuse of the word "person" in section 6(iii) and at the commencement ofsection 10 is not for the purpose of bringing about any difference inlaw in regard to the giving of the child. If the custom permits a personof the age of 15 years or more to be taken in adoption then even suchperson would be the child of the father or the mother. 'Child' wouldnot necessarily mean in that context a minor child. If the child is aminor, in absence of the father or the mother, a guardian appointed bythe will of the child's father or mother and a guardian appointed ordeclared by a court, would be competent to give the child in adoption.But in case of a major in absence of the father or the mother, no bodywill be competent to give him in adoption because no such provision 15 of 25 (( 16 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionhas been made in the Act to meet such a contingency. The scheme ofthe Act was not to make a child of 15 years of age or above fit to betaken in adoption. Exception was made in favour of a custom to thecontrary.”18.In the case of Kondiba Rama Papalalias Shirke .v. NarayanKondiba Papal, AIR 1991 SC 1180, the Hon’ble Supreme Courtconsidered scope of Sec. 10 of Hindu Maintenance And Adoption Actand observed as under:“The The question then arises, is the adoption legal and valid in law inview of the provisions of the Act? Section 10 of the Act inter aliaprovides that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoptionunless the four conditions therein laid down are fulfilled. We areconcerned with the fourth condition and it is as under: '(iv) he or she had not completed the age of fifteen years,unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the partieswhich permits persons who have completed the age offifteen years being taken in adoption.' At the time when theplaintiff was adopted he was about 22 years old, but eventhough there is a difference of opinion between variousschools as to the age when a boy may be adopted, so far asthe Bombay State is concerned the position is well settledin view of more than one judicial decision. As pointed outin Mulla's Hindu Law, 14th Edition at page 550, in the 16 of 25 (( 17 ))WP-6462-24AdoptionBombay State a person may be adopted at any age thoughhe may be older than the adopter and though he may bemarried and have children. The adoption is not invalidalthough it took place after the thread ceremony of the boywas performed. Thus the custom is judicially recognised inthe Bombay State as regards adoption of child at any age.Once the custom is judicially recognised, it is not requiredto be independently proved in subsequent cases. Theplaintiff and the defendant No. belonged to the area whichwas part of the old Bombay State and accordingly such acustom prevailed amongst them as regards adoption of achild at any age. Even independently of this position, in theold Bombay State evidence was led of two instances ofadoption of persons belonging to the same caste as theplaintiff where a child was adopted at the age above 15years after the Act came into force. Thus in my opinion, inview of the settled position in law as judicially recognised,if the factum of the adoption is established its validitycannot be challenged on the ground that the adopted childhad completed the age of 15 years at the time of hisadoption. 2. This observation of the High Court is well supported by a longline of decisions of that court including the subsequent decisionof the Full Bench of that Court in Anirudh Jagdeorao V. BabaraoIrbaji and Ors. - AIR 1983 Bom 391. In the circumstances we seeno reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal 17 of 25 (( 18 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionis, therefore, dismissed. We shall, however, make no order as tocosts." 19.The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the case ofSecretary, A.P.D. Jain Pathshala, (supra). In Para No. 30 of the saidjudgement, it is held that, “constitution of a Grievance Committee as aPublic adjudicatory forum, whose decision are binding on the partiesto the disputes, by an executive order of the Government isimpermissible. Secondly, the High Court cannot in exercise of judicialpower interfere with the jurisdiction of the civil courts vested underthe Code of Civil Procedure. Any such Grievance Committee createdby an executive order, either on the direction of the High Court orotherwise, can only be fact-finding bodies or recommending bodies inwhich can look into the grievances and make appropriaterecommendations to the Government or its authorities, for takingnecessary actions or appropriate reports to enable judicial tribunals torender decisions.” 20.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the caseof Mihir Ramesh Vora ..Vs.. Union Of India 2013 S C C OnLine Bom.1032 =(2013) 5 Mah. LJ 827, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court 18 of 25 (( 19 ))WP-6462-24Adoptionhas considered the word “Adopted Children” prescribed in Circulardated 3-10-2001 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (CPVDivision) Government of India for issuance of Passport to all adoptedchildren and observed in para 9 & 10 as under:“9] The circular dated 3.10.2001 is required to be read in itsentirety. So read, it is clear that the same applies to minorchildren, whether adopted or otherwise. The portion of thecircular captioned “Adopted Children” cannot be readindependent of the first portion, which clearly concerns minorchildren below 18 years age. Even in the second portion of thecircular entitled “Adopted Children” reference is made to'children' or 'adopted children'. Contextually, it is clear that therequirement concerns 'minor adopted children' and not 'adoptedchildren', who have attained age of majority. Further, in anycase, the circular applies to children, who are adopted fromanother State/area of jurisdiction other than that of the passportofficer. This is a matter of precaution. None of the thesecircumstances apply to the Petitioner's case. The Petitioner isneither a minor, nor has he been adopted from anotherState/area or jurisdiction other than that of the passport officer.Clearly therefore, the circular dated 3.10.2001 is inapplicable tothe case of the Petitioner. In these circumstances, it is notnecessary to rule upon the validity or otherwise of the circulardated 3.10.2001 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of thepresent Petition. 19 of 25 (( 20 ))WP-6462-24Adoption10] Mr. M. M. Vashi, however, placed reliance upon the decisionof a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vishvanath RamjiKarale vs. Rahibai Ramji Karale & Ors. A.I.R. 1931 Bombay 105,in which it is held that it is the act of adoption and not anadoption deed which confers the status of an adopted son. Aperfectly valid adoption can be made without an adoption deed.The relevant observations from this judgment are transcribedherein below for ready reference:-“.... Now admittedly this document was not written in thepresence of the Sub-Registrar or by him, and the questionthen would be whether an adoption deed of this naturerequires registration. Under S. 17, Registration Act,adoption deeds in themselves are not compulsorilyregistrable, but it is contended that by this adoption deedRamji the adopter created an interest of Rs.100 orupwards in immovable property and therefore thedocument would be compulsorily registrable. The answerto that is that it is not the adoption deed which confersthe status of an adopted son or any interest in theproperty of the adoptive father, but the adoption itselfwhich in this case had taken place some days earlier. Aperfectly valid adoption can be made without an adoptiondeed and any status which the adopted son gets by theadoption is due to the proper ceremonies being performedand not to any deed passed as evidence of that adoption.” 20 of 25 (( 21 ))WP-6462-24Adoption21.In the case in hand, it prima-facie appears that, on 18thApril 2022, the Petitioner got executed a registered deed of Adoptionfrom his alleged adoptive parents and within a span of 14 days, thePetitioner instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 725 of 2022 on 2nd May,2022 before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nilaga Dist. Laturand prayed for decree of declaration that he is adoptive son ofdefendants therein- Shri Lalu Shivram Jadhav and Smt. Narsabai LaluJadhav.Since the Petitioner has not described about schedule ofproceeding of RCS No. 725 of 2022, therefore, this Court suo-mototaken detail Roznama from website of the Civil Court and noticed thaton 2nd May, 2022, the Petitioner instituted suit. On 4th May, 2022, thelearned Trial Court issued notices to the defendants and thereafter, on6th May, 2022, the defendants therein (Adoptive parents) throughtheir Counsel suo-moto appeared in the matter and filed applicationfor taking the case on Board and filed the Compromise Deed Exh. 10.Thereafter, matter was placed before the National Lok-Adalat, whereinmatter was settled. Accordingly, on 7th May, 2022, the learned TrailCourt passed the order, which reads as under:"ORDER BELOW EXH. 1 21 of 25 (( 22 ))WP-6462-24Adoption(Passed ON 07-05-2022)In view of compromise memo at Exh. 10, the plaintiff anddefendants have compromised the matter. Therefore, the suit isdisposed of in terms of compromise memo at Exh. 10 inNational Lok-Adalat. Court fees be refunded as per rule. Decreebe drawn up accordingly."22. Since Respondent No. 1, Collector noticed about obtainingCertificates of Earthquake Affected Person by many persons byadopting mode of securing adoption deed and subsequently institutingsuit for declaration showing cause of dispute between them and theiradoptive parents, so also, they are showing settlement of disputebetween them and their adoptive parents and obtain compromisedecree from the court of law. Thereafter, said beneficiary obtainscertificate of Earthquake Affected Person on the basis of AdoptionDeed and compromise decree of the court. Therefore, in order tocurtail such manipulation practice and to prohibit such illegalbeneficiaries, Respondent No. 2 issued the circular dated 31st May,2023 and framed guidelines for issuance and verification ofEarthquake Affected Persons certificate, which does not appear illegalor prejudicial to any one. On the contrary, by issuing the impugnedcircular, Respondent No. 2 Collector extended the benefit to the real 22 of 25