Dismissed

Usha Ramrao Bhojane v. Mangala Shivdas Dindokar and 6 Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2015NMS/1415/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a notice of motion for interim relief based on alleged adoption in 1950, the Bombay High Court dismissed the plea. The court held that since the adoption predates the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Hindu law prior to 1956 did not recognise the adoption of a female child, there was no prima facie evidence of a valid adoption warranting relief.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs.

Usha Ramrao Bhojane Vs Mangala Shivdas Dindokar… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1.NOM-1415-14-S-824-14.DOC

¶2

Sharayu

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1415 OF 2014

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 824 OF 2014

¶6

…Plaintiff

¶7

Usha Ramrao Bhojane…Plaintiff
Versus
Mangala Shivdas Dindokar & Ors.…Defendants

¶8

Mr. N.J. Patil, i/b Mohan Shetty, for the Plaintiffs.
Mr.Cyrus Ardeshir, a/w Mrs. Deepali Shetty & Mr. Shrikant Aithal
i/b Hemangi Modi, for the Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶9

Mr. Farhan Dubash, a/w Ms. Harshal Manik, Mr. Siddharth Shenoy
i/b M/s. Rustomji & Ginwala, for the Defendants Nos. 3, 6 and
7.

¶10

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 17th February 2015

¶11

PC:-

¶12

1.The Plaintiff seeks interim relief on the basis that she is the
validly adopted daughter of one Laxman Shegaonkar and
Yamunabai Shegaonkar. The Plaintiff was born on 27th September
1946 to one Dashrath Shegaonkar and his wife Suman, the
Plaintiff’s biological parents. Dashrath and Laxman were brothers.
The Plaintiff’s case as specifically pleaded in paragraph 2 of the

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

1.NOM-1415-14-S-824-14.DOC

¶15

Plaint is, firstly, that she was adopted on 27th September 1950, and
secondly, that this adoption was under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956.

¶16

2.I will briefly note that annexed to the Plaint are various
documents, such as a school leaving certificate, a wedding card
invitation and a marriage certificate that purport to show the
Plaintiff as the adopted daughter of Laxman and Yamunabai
Shegaonkar.

¶17

3.However, the claim to adoption under the Hindu Adoptions
and Maintenance Act, 1956 is clearly incorrect. The alleged
adoption predates the Act by about six years. Therefore, the
adoption would be valid only if it is established that prior to 1956,
when the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 was
brought into force, a female Hindu could be validly adopted.

¶18

4.Mr. Ardeshir, Learned Counsel on behalf of Defendants Nos.
1, 2, 4 and 5, submits that prior to the 1956 Act, Hindu law did not
recognise the adoption of a female child at all. He relies on the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sandhya alias
Supriya Kulkarni & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.,1 a Division
Bench Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Binapani Samanta
Vs. Sambhu Mondal & Ors.2 and the decision of the Supreme Court
in M. Gurudas & Ors. Vs. Rasaranjan & Ors.3

¶19

1 AIR 1998 Bom 228

¶20

2 AIR 2010 (NOC) 466 (CAL.) The entire text of the Judgment has been made available.

¶21

3 (2006) 8 SCC 367

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

1.NOM-1415-14-S-824-14.DOC

¶24

5.We need look no further than the decision of the Supreme
Court which states in unambiguous terms that prior to the Hindu
Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the adoption of the
daughter is invalid under Hindu law. The Division Bench Judgment
of our Court, although in a wholly different context of a
Constitutional challenge to the vires of the Act (or its amendment)
itself makes it clear that under customary and ancient Hindu law
the right of adoption extends only to one male child and that the
adoption of a female child was never recognised till the 1956 Act.

¶25

6.In this view of the matter, the Plaintiff’s documents
notwithstanding, there is no prima facie evidence of a valid
adoption. In fact, the law is clearly to the contrary. No reliefs can be
granted to the Plaintiff on this Notice of Motion. The Notice of
Motion is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Usha Ramrao Bhojane v. Mangala Shivdas Dindokar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Ramrao Bhojane v. Mangala Shivdas Dindokar and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojkumar N. Agarwal and 4 Ors. Vs Sajjan N. Agarwal and 12 Ors.

Amratlal Bhanji Laxman Vs Kusum Prabhudas Laxman and 7 Ors.

Prasad T. Tendulkar Vs Rebecca Datta (Caveator)

Chandravadan N.Mathuria. Vs Pravinchandra Dwarkadas Dalal and 5 Ors.

Manoj Navinchandra Shah Vs Usha B. Shah and Anr.

Mr. Noshir Rustom Aga Vs Behram Rustom Aga and Mrs. Kety Minoo Dastur