Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that “the prosecution of the petitioner is sugarcoated with ill-intention and made to belittle his image in the society.”
The State did not oppose the recall of the termination order but contended that the it cannot be directed to bear the medical expenses of the delivery.
A woman’s decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself. This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on adoption by a married Hindu female.
Supreme Court noted that States like Goa, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, and Kerala have established Specialised Adoption Agencies in all their districts.
Madras High Court said 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
Madras High Court said that the reason given in the impugned refusal check slip reveals the patriarchal mind set of the registering authority, giving an underlying assumption that an unmarried woman above the age of 18 years cannot give her biological child in adoption.
The High Court stated that rights of child adopted by Indian Citizens in Uganda, which is a non-signatory to Hague Convention, cannot be left marooned.
Supreme Court said that the fact that when custody of the child was handed over to the aunt , she was un-married, and is now married having two children will not be a deterrent for this Court to come to the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the aunt as the child is living with her ever since she was 3-4 months old.
Madras High Court held that the period of treatment the wife has taken from the parental home cannot be termed as desertion.
Calcutta High Court held that petitioner’s delay in initiating the root search impacts the availability of certain documents, and no penal action can be taken against the adoption agency for the absence of the surrender deed.
“Generally, prospective adoptive parents have to wait for 3-4 years for getting ‘a healthy and young child’ due to the huge mismatch in the number of registered PAPs and children available for adoption.”
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on requirements of adoption under Hindu Law.
The Court said that the comparison done by the Competent Court between the biological mother being a housewife and the prospective adoptive mother (single parent) being a working lady reflects a mindset of the medieval conservative concepts of a family.
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by a couple aged 57 and 45 years, who had lost their son to road accident, and wanted to re-experience the bliss of parenthood via surrogacy but were barred by certain provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
Jharkhand High Court refused to disturb the findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court in a title suit for succession by an adopted son, whose adoption was questioned on the ground of customary provisions of Santhals.
The woman lost her father during the Covid-19 pandemic and her mother is unwell. She also has a married sister, 10 years older to her. However, all of them showed their inability to raise the child.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
The petition was filed challenging the vires of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2021 to the extent that the word ‘Court’ is replaced with ‘District Magistrate’