Facts: The onus to prove the adoption by clear, cogent and reliable evidence lay upon the respondents. After enactment of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') an adoption has to be made by a registered written instrument. The failure of the natural father to appear before the Registrar and endorse the adoption deed, negates the adoption deed and, therefore, does not raise a presumption as to execution of a valid adoption deed as envisaged by Section 16 of the Act. The endorsement before the Sub Registrar by the natural mother of the child alone leaves no ambiguity that the adoption made, without endorsement by the natural father, is illegal and, therefore, does not confer the status of an adopted child upon Jagsir Singh (respondent No. 1). It is argued that evidence of so called ceremonies of adoption produced by the respondents was rightly rejected by the trial Court by holding that it is beyond pleadings. The first appellate Court has, however, reversed these findings without assigning any clear and cogent reasons. The adoption deed is even otherwise surrounded by suspicious circumstances and when read along with the fact that the father did not make an endorsement, before the Sub Registrar, raises a credible inference that the adoption deed is a fabricated document, prepared with the sole object of depriving the appellants of their inheritance to the estate of Dharam Singh.
Held: It would be appropriate to deal with a contention raised by counsel for the appellants that as the trial Court had discarded evidence regarding ceremonies of adoption for failure to plead such a fact, the first appellate Court could not have reversed this part of the judgment. Even if the respondents had not proved ceremonies of adoption the fact that a written document of adoption was executed and proved, rendered pleadings and proof of ceremonies of adoption, irrelevant, particularly as adoption took place after enactment of the Act. In view of what has been recorded herein above in the absence of any error of jurisdiction or of law, discernible in the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed but with no order as to costs.

Facts: It was averred in the plaint that both the natural parents and the Appellant died when she was very young. Her mother is the sister of the original Respondent-M. Sarla Devi (died)-Respondent herein. Appellant pleaded in the suit that she was brought up as the daughter of the Respondent-M. Sarla Devi and her husband Late Narasimhulu Naidu. In the records of School and College, the names of the original Respondent and her husband were entered as the parents of the Appellant. Even in the government records like ration card, etc., the Appellant was mentioned as the daughter of the original Respondent and her husband. Narasimhulu Naidu worked as a Lift Operator in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (APSEB) and retired on 30.06.1999. In his service record, the Appellant is referred to as his daughter. The Appellant has been nominated in the application for pension of Narasimhulu Naidu. It was the case of the Appellant in the plaint that her adoptive parents initially did not approve the marriage of the Appellant with the person of her choice, but later arranged a grand reception at Hotel Swagat, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. Narasimhulu Naidu was the absolute owner of a building situated at Srinivas Nagar East, Gayatri Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. He also purchased certain other properties. Narasimhulu Naidu supplied textile materials and clothes to the employees of the APSEB and the Appellant was looking after the business. Narasimhulu Naidu died intestate on 19.08.2003. According to the Appellant, she along with the Respondent succeeded to the entire estate of Narasimhulu Naidu and that she is entitled to half share of his properties. It was submitted that due to the ill-advice of relatives, the original Defendant-M. Sarla Devi turned against the Appellant and was making an attempt to alienate the properties. As the negotiation for an amicable settlement failed, the Appellant was constrained to file a suit for a declaration that she is the adopted daughter of the original Respondent and Narasimhulu Naidu, and for partition of the properties belonging to Narasimhulu Naidu.
Held: Though the Appellant has produced evidence to show that she was treated as a daughter by (Late) Narasimhulu Naidu and the Defendant, she has not been able to establish her adoption. The mandate of the Act of 1956 is that no adoption shall be valid unless it has been made in compliance with the conditions mentioned in Chapter I of the Act of 1956. The two essential conditions i.e. the consent of the wife and the actual ceremony of adoption have not been established. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we find no error in the judgment of the High Court. Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed.

Facts: Amrit Kotwar and Lilo Kotwar jointly inherited the lands appearing to Jamabandi no. 25 and they joint possessed and cultivated the suit lands and Niro Kotwar in on the death of Amrit Kotwar in the year 1945 inherited the interest of her husband Amrit. But since Niro Kotwarin subsequently adopted defendant no. 5 as a son to herself and to her deceased husband and in confirmation of the fact of this adoption she executed a registered deed of adoption (Ext. A), the defendant no. 5 became the natural born son of Amrit Kotwar and obtained coparcenary interest in the joint Jamabandi No. 25. Defendants have made out a case that on the death of Amrit Kotwar his interest in the land of Jamabandi no. 25 would be deemed, due to the adoption of the defendant no. 5, to have been jointly inherited by the widow Niro Kotwarin and defendant no. 5 and they both would be deemed to have been in joint possession of the same.
Held: It is well settled provision of law that the adopted son became a member of the coparcenary and is entitled to claim one half share in the joint family properties excluding the alienations made before he was adopted. In the case in hand, the coparcenary case to an end on the partition decree in T.S. (Partition) No. 29 of 1960 and since then, the joint family consisting of Niro Kotwarin and Lilo Kotwar also ceased to exist. Thus, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that the defendant no. 5 could not be treated as coparcener in the joint family of his adoptive father and uncle and accordingly, claim of having succeeded to the ancestral property, having share equal to his adoptive mother, is untenable. In view of partition of 1960, the suit property became in the nature of self-acquired property of the widow and, after her death in 1969, all her six daughters and the adopted son are rightly to be held entitled to 1/7th share each. Thus, this Court finds that there is no illegality in the judgment of the appellate court as well as the trial court. The law point framed in the second appeal is answered accordingly. This Court further finds that two fact finding courts have come to a concurrent finding and this Court finds that there is no illegality in the facts of the case as the law point has been answered in negative. No relief can be extended in the second appeal and accordingly, Second Appeal No. 463 of 1990(P) stands dismissed. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Family Court and the directions to the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2750/- to the 2nd petitioner and pay Rs. 1,53,637/- towards her educational expenses and Rs. 6,70,000/- towards her marriage expenses. The Mat. Appeal is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.

Facts: Trial Court allowed Plaintiffs suit for a declaration that the 1st defendant was not adopted son and Exs. C and F were invalid. However, Subordinate Judge held that adoption ceremony where giving and taking of boy was took place. Hence, this Appeal.
Held: Evidence related to giving and taking was examined - Natural father (D. W. 7) and natural mother (D. W. 8) stated how giving and taking ceremony took place and was supported by family priest (D. W. 4) and by D. Ws, 5 and 6 and was closely scrutinized. However, proposal of an adoption being made was never mooted and disclosed before friends and relatives. Neighbours and relatives did not attend ceremony which was performed within 20 days of death of Plaintiffs husband. Therefore, evidence proved that there was an adoption ceremony as Exs. B to D was executed as part of same transaction and by same arrangement. Thus, once finding was that Exs. C and D were genuine and properly executed, suit for a declaration that those documents were not binding on Plaintiff must fail. Appeal dismissed.

Facts: The applicants have claimed that the applicant no. 2 is the son of applicant no. 1 and the deceased employee Late Banarsi Mallick who was the husband of applicant no. 1 and was working as Trackman under DEN -II/, Katihar, NF Railway, Katihar where he died in harness on 21.10.2015. They have alleged that applicant no. 2 is own son of applicant no. 1 and Late Banarsi Mallick. However, since the applicant no. 2 could not fulfill illegal desire of money of one of the lower officials at DERM office therefore this wild allegation of treating applicant no. 2 as the adopted son. The applicants have annexed copies of Birth Certificate, School Leaving Certificate, Election ID Card and Caste and Residence Certificate and Aadhar Card (from Annexure A/4 to A/10) in support of the claim for getting compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no. 2. The respondents have filed a written statement denying the claim of the applicant.
Held: A plain reading of the document produced at Annexure R/3 where the deceased employee has declared, by a sworn affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, "that I adopted a son, namely, Nand Kishore Mallick, aged about 20 years, is the son of Shri Narayan Mallick who is living in Railway Colony Barsoi before 15 years and I am maintaining him as my son". Such a categorical assertion in an affidavit, filed almost 20 years back, has to be given proper evidentiary value and cannot be rejected just because the learned counsel for the applicant challenges it during the course of argument. It is also seen that the birth certificate produced by the applicant (Annexure A/5) is dated 15.06.2009 while the date of birth is 12.11.1980 and hence the names of father and mother written in this certificate could well be those of his adoptive parents. Thus, when there is an affidavit filed by the deceased employee himself before a Magistrate claiming applicant no. 2 to be his adopted son the claim of the applicants to treat him as the biological son of the deceased employee cannot be accepted. Since all the reliefs claimed by the applicants is solely based on the basis of treating applicant no. 2 as the biological son of the deceased employee and since the documents produced by the respondents clearly shows this to be contrary to facts, the claim for compassionate appointment in favour of applicant no. 2 cannot be granted. The OA is, therefore, dismissed.

Facts: According to plaint allegations, marriage of Appellant was solemnised with respondent on 09.02.1999 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage Respondent came to her matrimonial home. However, according to Appellant, Respondent failed to discharge her spousal obligations and caused mental cruelty to Appellant. Allegation of cruelty alleged to have been committed by Respondent was sought to be substantiated by alleging that Respondent by her acts has not allowed Appellant to live in peace. She has started neglecting parents as well as brothers and sisters of Appellant. She also misbehaved with family members of Appellant. She also insulted Appellant in front of his friends.
Held: To the contrary, D.W.-1 i.e., respondent and D.W.-2, Matadeen, father-in-law of appellant have fully supported written statement. We have carefully examined their statements. It is apparent from perusal of same that on account of non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry by appellant and his family members, respondent was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The stand taken by respondent that she is ready to discharge her marital obligations and live with the appellant is conclusive proof of fallacy of allegations levelled by appellant. It is for above reason that no cogent evidence could be adduced by appellant to prove the alleged theft committed by respondent.

Facts: The petitioner filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act alleging therein that she is a resident of Jammu and that her marriage was solemnised with Surinder Chawla in the year 1995 who somehow expired on 24.3.2010. The petitioner alleged that her brothers-in-law namely the respondents Virender Chawla and Rajinder Chawla had, however, been harassing her and also been giving beatings to her on various occasions while stating that the petitioner had not brought dowry as per their expectations. It is alleged that when the petitioner was living in shared household she was not permitted to move alone out of home and the respondents used to threaten her that they would cause friction in her relationship with her husband. It is further alleged that earlier she had been awarded maintenance at the rate of 5000 per month by the Courts at Jammu & Kashmir which was later enhanced to 11,000 per month. However, after death of her husband the petitioner or her son had not been given a single penny towards maintenance out of the property of her husband and the entire business of her husband had been usurped by her brothers-in-law i.e. the respondents who had also misappropriated all the articles of her dowry. It is further alleged that when her husband was on death bed the respondents forged his signatures and got all the money released from banks and also operated the lockers and took out gold ornaments lying therein. The complainant alleged that she was not being allowed to enter into the shared household by respondents and was not given a single penny from the property or business of her husband. The respondents have opposed the petition.
Held: There was no rule that divorce between a couple would absolutely debar a wife from invoking provisions of Act and a wife despite her divorce be able to make out a case for grant of relief. However no complaint under Act or under any other penal provisions had ever been instituted before dissolution of marriage. Husband also had expired before institution of application under provisions of Act. There was no convincing evidence even to show that Petitioner had resided in shared household with Respondents or Respondents had subjected Petitioner to domestic violence. In absence of evidence to hold that complainant was residing in a shared household with Respondents or that Respondents had committed any act of domestic violence so as to hold them responsible to pay maintenance or any amount towards rentals of residential accommodation to Petitioner, Respondents who were brothers of Petitioner's husband could not be held liable in any manner to compensate Petitioner. Impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity. Revision Petition dismissed.

Facts: The mother of the Appellant, on her behalf, as well as on behalf of her two sons and the Appellant daughter, filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC against her husband, the R1, claiming maintenance for herself and her three children. The application of the Applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 was dismissed and that of the Appellant was allowed till she attains majority. All the four applicants filed a criminal revision, which was dismissed with the only modification that Appellant would be entitled to maintenance till the date she attains majority. High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by observing that both the Courts were consistent with regard to declining maintenance to Petitioners No. 1 to 3. As regards grant of maintenance to Appellant it was observed that there was no illegality or infirmity and accordingly the petition was dismissed. Hence, the present Appeal.
Held: a. The purpose and object of Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure is to provide immediate relief to applicant in a summary proceedings, whereas right under Section 20 read with Section 3(b) of Act, 1956 contains larger right, which needs determination by a Civil Court, hence for the larger claims as enshrined under Section 20, the proceedings need to be initiated under Section 20 of the Act and the legislature never contemplated to burden the Magistrate while exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure to determine the claims contemplated by Act, 1956.
b. The provision of Section 20 of Act, 1956 cast clear statutory obligation on a Hindu to maintain his unmarried daughter who is unable to maintain herself. The right of unmarried daughter under Section 20 to claim maintenance from her father when she is unable to maintain herself is absolute and the right given to unmarried daughter under Section 20 is right granted under personal law, which can very well be enforced by her against her father.

Facts: The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 3.4.1993. In their wedlock, the 2nd petitioner was born on 4.1.1994. The respondent deserted the petitioners in 1998. He filed O.P. No. 722/1997 seeking a decree for the dissolution of his marriage with the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner filed O.P. No. 829/1998 seeking an order for maintenance and other consequential reliefs. The Family Court allowed O.P. 829/1998 by ordering the respondent to pay monthly maintenance allowance to the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs. 750/-. There has been change of circumstances, hence the 2nd petitioner needs an amount of Rs. 3000/- as monthly maintenance allowance, to meet to her present day expenses and maintenance. The respondent is financially sound. He is a licensed Electrical Consultant Supervisor and Contractor, and he earns an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondent is taking hasty steps to dispose of his land properties in order to defeat the 2nd petitioner's right to realise maintenance from him. The 2nd petitioner has attained marriageable age and she requires an amount of Rs. 10 lakh for her marriage. Hence the order granting maintenance allowance to the 2nd petitioner at the rate of Rs. 750/- may be enhanced to Rs. 3000/- per month. The respondent may also be directed to meet to the educational and marriage expenses of the 2nd petitioner. Though the 1st petitioner is ready for a re-union, the respondent is not amenable.
Held: All that the petitioners sought was to give the 2nd petitioner 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments as her share in her parental properties and reasonable expenses in connection with the marriage. The Family Court directed the respondent to only pay 2/3rd of the total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, which was fixed at Rs. 6,70,000/-. Thus, we are of the view that, considering the status and standard of living of the respondent, the marriage expenses fixed by the Family Court at Rs. 6,70,000/- is reasonable and moderate. The said amount is well within the paying capacity of the respondent.

Facts: The marriage of Rahul Tripathi and Sonal Bhargava was solemnized on 10.5.1997. Smt. Sonal gave birth to the present petitioner on 21.7.1998. After some time, dispute arose between husband and wife and they jointly filed an application for divorce. Decree of divorce was granted. At that time, the petitioner was aged about 6 years and her custody was given to the mother - Sonal Bhargava and both have started living at 16, Race Course Road, Anand Park, Indore. According to the petitioner, her mother Sonal Bhargava had accepted only the 'Stridhan' and declined to receive permanent maintenance. The present petitioner filed an application u/s. 20 & 23 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 before the Family Court, Indore against her father - Rahul Tripathi seeking maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Rahul Tripathi appeared before the Family Court and opposed the aforesaid application for maintenance. Learned Judge, Family Court, Indore has rejected the contention of Rahul Tripathi that he has paid Rs. 5,00,000/- for maintenance of his daughter and her mother has forgone the right to claim maintenance to her. Learned Family Court has held that the mother cannot take away the right of daughter, hence she is entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance. Learned Family Court has directed Rahul Tripathi to give Rs. 5,000/- per month to the petitioner till she attains the age of majority and till marriage.
Held: In the present case, the petitioner is having a decree to get the maintenance till she attains the age of majority and gets married. For payment of maintenance, her father - deceased Rahul Tripathi had created a FDR from which she used to get Rs. 5,000/- per month by way of transfer to her Bank Account. After the death of her father, the respondent has broken the FDR and instructed the Bank to transfer the amount of FDR in her Account. The right of the petitioner has been created by a decree of the Court to get the maintenance and the FDR was a "estate" of the deceased from which she is entitled to get the maintenance. Therefore, even if the judgment-debtor has expired, the money decree is liable to be executed by attachment of his property.

Facts: Grievance of the Petitioners is that Respondent No. 1 has shown their inability to give the child - Isha in adoption to them on the ground that intervenors Mrs. Rachel Mathew and her husband Mr. Raj Narayan Mysore who are Overseas Indians residing in USA, have already approved the child, before the child was shown to the Petitioners. Petitioners, therefore, are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction, directing Respondent No. 1 and other Respondents to give the said baby girl Isha in adoption to the Petitioners. Petitioners have challenged the decision of Respondent No. 1 of giving the baby girl Isha in adoption to the Intervenors on the ground that the said decision is contrary to the guidelines which have been laid down by the Ministry of Women and Child Development in a Notification issued on 24/6/2011 which laid down the guidelines covering the adoption of children.
Held: Documents on record clearly establish that Overseas Indian Couple had already approved child in May 2013. However once child had been shown to Overseas Indians and approved by them then child could not have been shown to Petitioners or to other Indian parents and therefore Petitioners could not claim any right or priority to get child in adoption merely because they were Indian parents and that preference should be given to Indian parents over Overseas Indians or foreign couples - Further it was satisfied that procedure which was required to be followed by US based adoption agency/AFAA, Central Adoption Resource Authority/ CARA and referral by CARA to Respondent No. 1 was scrupulously followed and there was absolutely no infirmity in said procedure and Petition under consideration appears to have been filed on account of misconceived notions and on account of suspicion rather than concrete material against Respondent No. 1. Therefore ARC was directed to issue Letter of Recommendation within two weeks. Thus CARA was directed to comply with formalities of adoption within six weeks from today in favour of Interveners and Petitioners should not be deprived of getting child in adoption and therefore direct Respondent No. 1 and Interveners to ensure that within six weeks Petitioners were shown another child. Hence there was no substance in submissions made by Petitioners. Petition was disposed of.