ANCHI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has seven married daughters. Her husband Havaldar Sultan Ram served in the Artillery Regiment of the Indian Army from 29.03.1940 to 24.07.1958. The petitioner claims that on 18.04.2012 she adopted Pardeep son of Hari Singh as her son. The adoption has been through a registered deed dated 18.04.2012. The date of birth of Pardeep is 11.03.1996. There can be no manner of doubt that a female Hindu whose husband is dead can adopt a child. This right is preserved by Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"). That after the said adoption, the petitioner approached the Army authorities by filing an affidavit dated 03.05.2012 bringing the factum of adoption, the death of her husband to their knowledge and that she was old and living alone and had, therefore, adopted Pardeep Kumar. The petitioner made a request to Arty Records 56 APO through the Zila Sainik Board, Narnaul for publication of Part II Orders No. 2835920 of late Havaldar Sultan Ram attaching photocopy of the adoption deed, the ration card, school education certificate, certificate from the Gram Panchayat, birth certificate and two of their passport size photographs. The request of the petitioner for publication of Personal Occurrences in Part II Orders with respect to Personnel Below Officers Rank (PBOR) to get the name of Pardeep Kumar entered on the record of the late husband has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision in Army rules for adoption of a child by the widow of an Ex -serviceman. Army Headquarters letter No. A/20105/MP 8 (I of R(a) dated 26 August 2002, entitles only ESM to adopt a child and, therefore Part II Orders in NE Series cannot be published. The abovesaid Army letter was supplied to the petitioner on RTI request made by her. Para 10(f) reads as follows: -

(2.) THE vires of the above rule has been challenged in this petition on the ground that it is in conflict with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is urged that since the petitioner has a right to adopt under Section 8 of the Act, the Army restriction is unfair and unreasonable since it takes away the right to declaration as a son/ward of Ex -serviceman. Government of India in the Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 05.04.1991 recognized marriage after retirement and children born of such marriage and children born after retirement became entitled to family pensionary benefits. However, the Indian Army has not given right of declaration as ward of Ex -serviceman through adoption. The wards of Ex -serviceman are entitled to a large number of benefits including reservation in educational institutions/employment opportunities and award of petrol/LPG dealership and various other such concessions etc. where quotas have been fixed for Ex -serviceman and wards of Ex -serviceman. If the Indian Army is not prepared to recognize adoption except in consonance with 10(f) of Army Circular dated 28.08.2002 (P -8) it cannot be said that the provision is arbitrary, unfair or opposed to public policy. The Army does not say that Pardeep Kumar is not the adopted child of the petitioner. It only says that Pardeep Kumar would not enjoy the status of son/ward of Ex -serviceman entitling him to myriad benefits and concessions and largesse distributed by the State in recognition of services rendered to defend the country. Therefore, Rule 10(f) is a reasonable restriction to the right under Section 8 of the Act. Nor does it violate Articles 14, 15 or 16 of the Constitution. Such adoption may be good in law but cannot be misused for oblique purposes and objects not conferred by the respondents in its conscious policy decision.