The Madras High Court clarified the legal ramifications of adoption, emphasizing that upon adoption, all ties of the adopted child with their biological family are legally severed and replaced by those in the adoptive family.

"Thus, it is made clear that on the date of adoption, the ties of the adoptive child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family," the Court said.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan made this observation while addressing a petition challenging a decision related to legal heirship.

The case involved Kottravel Sethupathi, who was adopted by Ramasamy and Sivakami. Upon their demise, Sethupathi became their sole legal heir. Subsequently, Sethupathi also passed away, leaving no first-class legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

Following Sethupathi's death, his biological siblings sought a legal heirship certificate, claiming inheritance rights over his property. This led to a dispute wherein the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) initially issued a certificate in favor of Sethupathi's biological relatives. However, upon appeal, the RDO's decision was overturned, prompting further legal proceedings.

The Petitioner, Sakthivel, argued that under Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the ties of the adopted child with their biological family are severed upon adoption, thereby precluding any claim of legal heirship by the biological relatives.

The Court concurred with this interpretation, affirming that adoption under Indian law extinguishes the rights of the biological family concerning inheritance from the adoptive family. The Single-Judge Bench underscored that the RDO's decision contravened Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act by recognizing the biological siblings as legal heirs.

The court emphasized that the legal status of an adopted child is determined solely by their adoptive family, with no legal rights accruing to the biological family in matters of inheritance after adoption. "Thus, it is clear that the adoptive child is construed to be a member of the adopted family, all the ties of the child are replaced in the adoptive family created by adoption," it said.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the RDO's order and allowed the Writ Petition.

"The order passed by the first respondent is in contravention of Section 12 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the order passed by the first respondent dated 31.12.2020 is liable to be set aside. Therefore, the order passed by the first respondent dated 31.12.2020 is quashed. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: V. Sakthivel v. The Revenue Divisional Officers and Others

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Naveen Kumar Murthi

Respondent: Advocates S.J. Mohammed Sathik, D. Selvaraju

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice G K IlanthiraiyanMadras High CourtHindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act

Sukriti Mishra