Bombay High Court Upholds Petitioner in Testamentary Petition by Holding Adoption Valid Under Sections 6, 7 and 11 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 — Registry Objection to Proof of Adoption Overruled. Court Directed Issuance of Letters of Administration Without Will after Finding Actual Giving and Taking Ceremony and Consent of Adoptive Mother Satisfied Mandatory Conditions, with Dattahoma Not Essential.

Case Note & Summary

The matter arose from a testamentary petition seeking letters of administration without a will in respect of the estate of Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer. The petitioner, Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer, claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased and her husband Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer. The Registry of the Bombay High Court raised an objection on 13 August 2025 that before granting letters of administration without will, the petitioner had to prove the fact of adoption as per law. The court heard the matter on 28 July 2026 and delivered an oral order on 28 August 2026. The petitioner submitted that the adoptive parents had no natural son or daughter and wanted to adopt the petitioner, who was then about 2 years and 8 months old, born on 7 January 1986, being the biological son of N. J. Gopalan and G. Jayanathi. According to the petitioner, on 5 September 1988, in the presence of relatives and well-wishers, the child was given and taken in adoption by Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer. The petitioner relied on an adoption deed dated 5 September 1988, at pages 20 to 22 of the petition, and an affidavit of Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer dated 7 October 2025. The counsel argued that the adoption ceremony was performed not only as per customs and traditions by performing Dattahoma but also in accordance with Sections 6, 7 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The affidavit stated that the deceased and her husband adopted the petitioner and that all government and other records showed them as the parents of the petitioner. The court considered the relevant provisions. Section 6 sets out the requisites of a valid adoption, including capacity of the person adopting, capacity of the person giving in adoption, capability of the person adopted, and compliance with other conditions. Section 7 provides that any male Hindu of sound mind and not a minor has capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption with the consent of his wife. Section 11 lists other conditions, including that the adoptive father or mother must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son living at the time of adoption, and that the child must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian with intent to transfer the child from the family of birth to the family of adoption, with the proviso that performance of datta homam is not essential to validity. The court relied on the Supreme Court decision in M. Vanaja v. M. Sarla Devi (dead), (2020) 5 SCC 307, which held that Sections 7 and 11 are mandatory for a valid adoption and that the two conditions to be complied with are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in adoption. The court found from the adoption deed that the adoptive parents, aged 40 and 38 respectively, had the capacity to adopt the petitioner, then a minor aged 2 years and 8 months. The affidavit of Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer confirmed that the petitioner was put in the lap of the adoptive parents by the biological parents on 5 September 1988 at their house in Bangalore in the presence of relatives and well-wishers for performing Dattahoma as per Hindu Brahmin Iyer customs, and that sweetmeats and prasad were distributed. The affidavit also stated that all government and other records showed the adoptive parents as the parents of the petitioner. The court observed that the conditions of Sections 7 and 11 had been met and held that the adoption was proved. The Registry's objection was held to be complied with. The court directed the Registry to proceed with the issuance of letters of administration without will to the petitioner, subject to any other objections, requisitions, or caveats.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

Adoption held proved; Registry objection complied with; Registry directed to proceed with issuance of Letters of Administration without Will to the petitioner, subject to any other objections, requisitions, or caveats

Law Points