Even estranged wife’s consent must for child adoption: Court

10 December 2020

Prayagraj: In an important judgment, the Allahabad high court has held that even if a married Hindu man has estranged wife, i.e., living apart but not divorced, even then he needs prior consent of his alienated wife for adoption of a child under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by one Bhanu Pratap Singh of Mau district, Justice JJ Munir observed, “The proviso makes it imperative for a Hindu male to secure his wife’s consent to an adoption that he makes, unless she 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.”

The petitioner, Bhanu Pratap Singh, had requested for appointment on compassionate grounds in the forest department of the state after the death of his uncle Rajendra Singh.

According to the petitioner, in the year 2001 he was adopted by his uncle, Rajendra Singh, who had alienated his wife Phulmati and had no child from the marriage. Therefore, he was entitled for job as per the provisions of ‘The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974’ because he was sole heir and dependant of his adopter, who was an employee of the forest department at the time of his death.

Subsequently, on December 17, 2016, the forest department rejected the plea of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence, this rejection was challenged in the present petition before the high court.

The court, while declining to interfere in the rejection order passed by the forest department, dismissed the petition holding that adoption was not in accordance with law.

While giving this judgement, the court further observed, “There is no doubt that Smt. Phulmati was a wife living until the death of the late Rajendra Singh. The two were never divorced, howsoever estranged they might have been,” observed the court while dismissing the petition.

The court gave this judgment on November 25 and came to light on December 9.

.