The Allahabad High Court has ruled that in Uttar Pradesh, only registered adoption deeds are legally valid, while notarized deeds hold no legal effect, reaffirming strict compliance with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently delivered a landmark judgment reinforcing the legal requirement for adoption deeds in Uttar Pradesh to be registered. This decision underscores the mandatory procedural compliance under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956, as amended for the state, clarifying that a notarized adoption deed holds no legal validity.
Background of the Case
The matter came to the court through a special appeal filed by Arun and another, who sought custody of a minor girl, claiming to be her adoptive parents. Their claim rested solely on a notarized adoption deed, and they also relied on a 2014 Allahabad High Court judgment in Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P., arguing that registration of the adoption deed was not mandatory.
The original dispute had arisen from a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the purported adoptive parents. The single judge had directed that the girl remain in the custody of her natural guardians, on the ground that the adoption deed was unregistered and hence legally ineffective.
Court’s Analysis
The division bench, comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Prashant Kumar, thoroughly examined the relevant legal provisions:
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), Section 16: Governs the legal framework for adoption among Hindus.
- U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976: Amended HAMA for Uttar Pradesh, making registration of adoption deeds compulsory for adoptions after January 1, 1977.
- Registration Act, 1908, Section 17: Reinforces that certain documents, including adoption deeds, require registration to be legally valid.
The court held that the combination of these laws clearly mandates that any adoption in Uttar Pradesh after 1977 can only be effected through a registered deed. A notarized document, even if executed in good faith, cannot substitute for a registered deed.
The bench also addressed the appellants’ reliance on the 2014 Sanjay Kumar judgment, clarifying that the decision pertained to compassionate appointments and post-retirement benefits, not adoption validity. Furthermore, the court noted that secondary evidence rules under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, cannot be invoked when the primary evidence, the registered adoption deed, never existed.
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the notarized adoption deed had no legal standing. Consequently, the custody of the minor remained with her natural guardians, reaffirming the statutory mandate.
Appearance:
Counsel for Appellant: Prateek Tewari, Praveen Kumar Tewari
Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Shashank Shukla
Case Title:
Arun And Another vs State Of U.P. and 7 Others
SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 316 of 2025
Read Order:
