SUDARSANAN SEN Vs. SUDARASANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in an Original Petition under Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 read with Section 13(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 seeks revision of the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the Original Petition as not maintainable. The Original Petition was filed by the revision petitioner before the District Court, Kollam seeking an order of declaration that he is the adopted son of the 3rd respondent, a citizen of the United Kingdom. Petitioner's natural parents were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. According to the petitioner, he was born to respondents 1 and 2 on 10.3.1983; all the parties are Hindus; the 3rd respondent is a British citizen who retired from the service of M/s. D.S.S. Long-benton of United Kingdom; the 3rd respondent's wife Smt. Vijayamma Narayanan died in the year 1965; they have no issues, the 3rd respondent did not re-marry after the demise of his wife; on 15.5.1985 the 3rd respondent adopted the petitioner as his son with the consent of the petitioner's natural parents respondents 1 and 2; the said adoption is a perfectly valid adoption in terms of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; still no document and much less any registered document was executed for recording the said adoption. Eversince adoption the petitioner and 3rd respondent have been living as adopted child and adoptive father respectively and from that day onwards all the family ties between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2, his natural parents remained severed and replaced by those created by the adoption. It is alleged by the petitioner that he is pursuing studies in Engineering in a college in Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu and it is the 3rd respondent who is looking after the petitioner in all respects. The petitioner intends to go over to United Kingdom, after completion of his present course, for higher studies and the 3rd respondent is desirous of taking the petitioner over to United Kingdom. According to the petitioner, documentary proof regarding the adoption has become necessary in view of his proposed journey to the United Kingdom for joining the 3rd respondent. Hence the Original Petition seeking the relief of declaration regarding the adoption.

(2.) All the respondents were served with notice of the O.P. by the District Court. They on entering appearance filed formal statement of objections supporting the claim of the petitioner. Pursuant to orders of the Court, publicity regarding the filing of the Original Petition was given through the Government Gazette and nobody entered in response to the Gazette notification to resist the application.

(3.) The evidence in the case consisted of the petitioner's testimony as PW.1 and Ext.A1, his birth certificate. The Court heard the parties and took the case up for orders. But orders were not pronounced, in view of doubts regarding the maintainability of the proceeding. Accordingly the case was reopened and the parties were heard again on the question of maintainability. After hearing, the Court dismissed the Original Petition as not maintainable taking the view that neither Section 9(4) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act nor Section 13(1) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act invoked by the petitioner will enable the Court to grant the relief of declaration sought for in the petition.