SANDHYA ALIAS SUPRIYA KULKARNI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were prevented from taking in adoption second time a female child (petitioner No. 1), in view of section 11 (i) and (ii) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned provisions"), they have questioned the validity thereof on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The impugned provisions read thus: "in every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with --- (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, sons son or sons sons son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption), (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or sons daughter (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption" (Emphasis supplied.)Thus the impugned provisions injunct a person from having second son or daughter by adoption.

(2.) ACCORDING to Shri Anand Grover, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the impugned provisions have created several classes not based on an intelligible differentia such as (i) parents with unlimited number of natural children and parents without children, (ii) child adopted and the child to be adopted, (iii) adoptive parents with any number of natural children of same sex, and parents prevented from taking any child of same sex in adoption. This is violative of Article 14. The submission is not well-merited. The classification as carved out has not been created by the impugned provisions. Attempt was also made to seek support from the authority reported in A. I. R. 1983 Supreme Court 130 (D. S. Nakara v. Union of India which has laid down that Article 14 prohibits class legislation. Ratio of this authority has no application to the instant case, as the impugned provisions have not attempted to do so.

(3.) THE main challenge put forth is that the Right to Life under Article 21 as explored through various judicial pronouncements, has numerous dimensions. Life with human dignity is one such. The right to have size of a family, according to ones own choice, is comprehended within the concept of human dignity. Since the impugned provisions prevent such right, they are violative of the Constitutional guarantee.