CHAPTER-III

CONCEPT OF ADOPTION
I. Introduction
Adoption as a concept has different dimensions in various legal systems.
It is serving a very important social purpose also. Adoption is a very important
institution in our society. Like other social institutions adoption is essentially a
product of historical and evolutionary processes. Different economic ends and
social demands of times have gone into shaping it through the successive ages.
Today Institution of adoption is prevalent in one form or the other in almost all
the legal systems of the world barring a few countries. But there are national
variations in Adoption laws and procedure. In India there is no general law of
adoption. Adoption has been recognised for centuries, but being a part of
personal laws, there is no uniformity among the different communities. Adoption
as a legal institution came to be recognised only among Hindus, Muslims do not
recognize adoption but the practice has been prevalent among Christians and
Parsis as well. Hindu law is the only law which recognizes adoption in the true
sense of taking of a child as a substitute for a natural bom child. The desire to
have the natural bom son is considered to be the basis of adoption among Hindus.
If a person had no natural bom son he was allowed to take son of some other
person as his own. The sonship was given importance due to various religious
and secular purposes in ancient period.
II. What is Adoption?
As far as the concept of adoption is concerned it is very difficult to be
define it in words. This institution has changed over a period of times in its form,
purposes and objects because it is natural that as human thought proceeds the
concept and organization of social institutions is also advanced and get modified.
In most of ancient civilizations and in Southern Indian cultures as well as, the
purposes served by adoption differed substantially from those emphasized in
modem times. The continuity of male line had been the main goal of adoption
 87

among Hindus. The importance of male heir along with the religious and
economic consideration made it more popular among the Hindus. During the
olden days, only the son could be adopted and welfare of the adoptee was the
primary concern than the welfare of the adopted. The different thinkers have
given their own definition of adoption.
This institution has been defined by sociologists as follows
Mark Soler, Jan C. Costello & Barbara O’ Heaven have opined-
“Adoption is a legal procedure which permanently
terminates the legal relationship between the child
and his or her biological parents and initiates a new
parent-child relationship.1
Unitar Whinnie said:
“It legally establishes a parent-child relationship
between persons not so related. The child is
absorbed in the family of adopter and is treated as if
it were their own Natural Child. By adoption, an
artificial but a permanent family relationship is
created between the child and the adopter”2
According to Florence Rondell and Anne Marie - Murray -
“Adoption provides family to children who would
otherwise remain parentless and permanently
deprived of physical and psychological benefits of
family life. Caring adults are afforded a chance to
become parents and experience growth as family”3

Legal Rights of Children in the United States of America in Anna Mamalakis

Pappas, Law and the Status of Child in 2 Vol. P. 701. See D.C. Manooja,
Adoption Law and Practice, P. 6.
Adopted Children - How they grew up, 1967, P. 36.
New Dimension in Adoption, 1974 P. 1
 88

Dr. H.W.O. Okoth - Ogendo stated:-

“Adoption can be considered as an importance
mechanism for the care of children on a permanent
basis, away from in substitution of care by natural
parents”.4
According to. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics-
“Adoption indicates the transfer of child from old kinsmen to the new.
The child ceases to be member of the family to which he belongs by birth. The
child loses all rights and is deprived of all duties with regard to his natural parents
and kinsmen. In the new family, the child is like the natural bom child with all
the rights and liabilities of a native bom member.5
Encyclopaedia Britannica explains thus-
“Adoption is a way of conferring the privileges of
parents upon the childless and advantages of parents
upon the parentless.6
In legal parlance adoption is defined by different juristis as Corpus Juris
Secondum -
“Adoption is the establishment of the relation of the
parent and the child between persons not so related
by nature. A popular meaning apart from the law is,
the taking of a child, not one’s own, into the family
and rearing it.”7
P. Ramanatha Aiyer’s Law Lexicon defines it as under:
“Act by which relations of paternity and affiliation
are recognized as legally existing between persons
not so related by nature.

The legal status of child in Kenya’s Political economy, in Anna Mamalakis

papeas; 'Law and Status of child’ in 2 Vols. P. 513.
Vol. 1971 P. 105.
Vol. P. 165.
CJS Adoption 1.
 89

Punjab and Haryana High Court in Inder Singh v. Kartar Singh* has expressed
the meaning and purposes of adoption in the following words.
“Broadly put, adoption under Hindu law is the
admission of the stranger by birth to the privileges
of a child by a legally recognized form of affiliation
and contemplation of Hindu law and adopted child
is deemed to be begotten by the father who adopts
him or for and on behalf of whom he is adopted.
Thus, “Taking of a son” is a substitute for the
failure of male issue and its object is two folds:
(i) To secure the performance of funeral rites of the person to whom the
adoption is made; and
(ii) To preserve the continuance of his lineage. In other words the main
object of adoption under strict Hindu law seems to be to secure
spiritual benefit for the adopter, though its secondary object is to
secure an heir to perpetuate an adopter’s name.”
The Implications of Adoption are as under :
“Some formal arrangements that are legally defined as adoption establish
kinship ties only in relation to the transmission of property. On the other hand,
some informal arrangements involve a child intensively in a new family of
orientation, while at the same time legally maintaining the separateness of his
identity.9
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary puts it as : Adoption has been spoken of as new
birth in many cases, term sanctioned by the theory of Hindu Law, Nor is the
expression a mere figure of speech. The theory itself involves the principle of a
complete severance of the child from the family in which he is bom, and complete
substitution into the adoptive family as if he were bom in it. The fundamental

AIR 1966 Punj. 258.

Prem D.R. Judicial Dictionary, Vol I. P. 93.
 90

ideas is that the boy given in adoption gives up the natural family and everything
connected with the family. The expression civilly dead is correct for all
purposes.10
“Adoption is the act by which a person takes the child of another into his
family, and treats him as his own.*11
1
The Privy Council in Ramasubbayya v. Chanchu Ramayya, wherein sir
Madhavan Nair, delivering this judgment of behalf of the board observed:
“The object of adoption is too fold (i) to secure the performance of funeral
rites of the person to whom the adoption is made; and (ii) to preserve the
continuance of his linage”.
It further defined Adoption as under:
“A juridical act creating between two person certain relations, purely civil,
of paternity and affiliation.”
International Encyclopaedia, of Social Science defines adoption in the
following words
“Adoption is the institutionalized practice through which an individual
belonging by birth to one kinship group acquires new kinship ties, that are civil
(and legally) defined as equivalent to the congenital ties. These new ties
supersede the old ones either wholly or in part.13
III. Origin and Evolution of Adoption in Hindu Law
The origin of adoption is the lost in antiquity. According to Sastry Sarkar,
however, it is the survival of an Archie Institution which owed its origin to the
principle of slavery, whereby a person might like the lower animals be subject of
dominion or proprietary right: might; in fact; be bought and sold, given and
accepted or relinquished in the same way as a cow or a horse.14 In ancient society
slaves, and children were all treated as property and, thus, could be sold and

10 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol. 1 P. 146.

11 Ibid.
12 AIR 1947 P.C. 124 at P.127.
13 Vol I, P. 95.
14 Hindu Law of Adoption, P. 1.
 91

transferred. The text of Vasishitha15 upon which the Hindu Law of adoption is
founded allows sale of a son. ‘A son produced from the virile seed and the
uterine blood is an effect, whereof the mother and the father are the cause: the
mother and the father, therefore, are competent to give or sell or abandon.’ The
adoption bearing resemblance with certain aspects of slavery was not slavery in
the real sense. According to Shastri Sarkar “In ancient times, there was no
distinction between man and the animal so far as they were subjects of dominion
or proprietary rights. Man like the animal could be bought and sold, given and
accepted. Father had absolute rights over his children. His powers were unlimited
which extended even to the taking of their lives. The primitive mind did not like
that such power be taken away by any subsequent stage.16
The hard life led by savages involving living on precarious food procured
by hunting, often completed them to sell their children. It was considered
beneficial to sell a child to a person who could provide maintenance than to see
the child dying starving. Distress and poverty of parents was the main cause of
selling the children.17 Although, father could sell his child as a slave, yet most of
the slaves were either captured in war or criminal condemned to slavery.18
Though, slaves could be bought in abundance they could never be substituted in
place of children. A purchaser could not have same feeling of affection which he
would have towards his own kith and kin. A slave is generally not interested in
the promotion or welfare of the purchaser and his family as they are not related by
blood relationship. As the importance of sonship grew, the people resorted to

D.M. P. 31.
Hindu Law of Adoption, Tagore law Lectures 1888 PI (R Cambray & Co, 9
Hastings St. Calcutta). The patria Potestas of the Romen Law depicts true
picture of the father’s power over his children in olden times. The father was
having complete dominion over his children as on his slaves. His powers over
his children were unlimited. But his treatment with his children was different than
slaves. It was not due to any legal restraint upon his powers but of natural love
and affection towards his children.
Ibid.
Even at present, the people sell their children at the same price at which a dog
can be sold or a bottle of brandy be purchased Sharda P. nanda (Selling babies
for Survival, Sunday magazine, July 14-20, 1985 PP. 51-52.
 92

other means to fulfill their desire to have a natural bom son. It became necessary
to bring into family foreigners who could carry on the tradition of a family. It
was, therefore, natural that artificial relations of consanguinity be created for a
welfare of the family. This seems to have been the origin of adoption which was
nothing but a fictitious creation of blood relationship. Strangers were introduced
into the family on the ground that they simulated as blood relations. This fiction
of adoption was looked upon with favour neither by law nor by public opinion.19
After the abolition of slavery, institution of adoption continued to exist as
it had acquired a Novel aspect. The conception of paternity and sonship
materially changed. Dominion could not longer be acquired by the father over his
son. The failure of adoption would not deprive the boy of his status and birth
right in the natural family. Though, the institution of adoption was in existence
even before the Vedic society, but it was not favoured and welcomed during
Vedic age.20 A Rik in Rigveda says
“unwelcome for adoption is stranger one to be
thought of as another’s offspring, though grown
familiar by continual presence may our strong Hero
come freshly triumphant”21.
Thus, during this age own son was strongly desired. The reason for the
dislike of adopted son can be traced in the text of Sukara that on seeing a rich man
they desired to be adopted. To consider a son bom of another, as one’s own son
was termed as a (path of fools).22 Passanges are found in the Smiritis23 declaring
the sale and gift of children to be sinful. Indirectly, it points out the practice of
sale and gifts of children amongst Hindus in the ancient India. But it would be
wrong to conclude that ancient sages Manu and Yajnavalkya prohibited the sale
or gift of child in adoption. Rather, both sages, recognized adoption. It was

19 R.A. Naravan History of Hindu Law, Vol. I P. 91-92.

20 Supra note 16 PP. 5-8.
21 Rigveda VII 4,8.
22 Kane’s History Dharmashashtra, P. 662.
23 Manu XI, 62 and 67; Yajnavalkya III, 236.
 93

considered as a meritorious act on the part of the father to give away a son in
adoption.24 However if we go through ancient literature, we find that Dattaka son
was known even in Vedic times. The legend of Sunahsepa in Aitareya Bahmana
refers to his father having sold him in adoption to king Harishchandra and to his
subsequent adoption by the Sage Visvamitra who had aurasa sons of his own.
Another Vedic story tells of Rishi Atri who gave an only son in adoption to
Aurasa.26 His equality in Status with the aurasa son both for spiritual and
temporal purposes was established from the earliest times an he had to offer
Pindas both to his father and maternal grand father and he took the estate of his
father if he left no son.27
According to Henry Maine, “the whole law of adoption evolved from two
texts and a metaphor.28 The texts referred are of Manu and Vasishtha and
Metaphor of Shaunaka.
(A) Text of Manu
Manu syas, “that boy, equal by caste, whom his mother or his father
affectionately gives, confirming the gift with a libation of water, in times of
distress to a man as his son, must be considered as an adopted son (Datrima)”.
“An adopted son shall never take the family name and estate of his natural
father, the funeral cake follows the family name and the estate the funeral
offerings of him who gives the son in adoption cease as far as that son is
concerned.”29 This text implies that:-
(1) the father and mother only can give a boy in adoption;
(2) the donee must be in distress on account of sonlessness,
(3) the boy must be of the same caste.

Shaunaka’s cited in Dattaka Minansa, IV, 1.

Ait. Brah; VII, 3, Vas, XVII, 30-35.
Kane, H.D. S., 6.
Manu, IX, 132, 133, 140, Yajn; II, 128 Vishnu, XV, 47.
Mayne Treatise on Hindus Law and usage; lith Edn. P. 188. Datmima, V, 15.
Manu, IX, 168, 141, 142.
 94

(B) Text of Vashistha

Vashistha says :-
(1) “Man formed of uterine blood and virile seed proceeds from his mother
and father an effect from its cause. Therefore, the father and mother have
power to give, to sell and to abandon their son.
(2) An only son should neither be given, nor accepted, since he must remain
to continue the line of his ancestor,
(3) A woman should not give or take a son in adoption, without her husband’s
consent;
(4) One desirous of adopting a son should, after having invited his relation,
having informed the king and having performed in the dwelling-house the
Vyahriti Homa may take a son whose kinsmen are not unknown or one
who is a near relation.
(5) But if a doubt arises as to his caste the adopted son whose kinsmen are
unknown should be set apart like a Sudra; for by one many are saved.
(6) If after he has been adopted, a real legitimate son be bom, then the
adopted son would obtain a fourth share”.30
(C) Saunaka’s Metaphor
Saunaka Says that :-
“The Adopter having taken the boy by both the hands, with the recitation
of the prayer.... Having abound with clothes so the boy bearing the reflection of
son - and having performed the homa or burnt sacrifice with the holy texts,
sapindas or on failure of these an asapinda, may be adopted; otherwise let him not
adopt.”
It is further said, “the boy to be adopted must be one bearing the reflection
of a son. The phrase bearing the reflection of a son has been taken to mean the

Vas; XV, 1-6 cited by Loard Hobhouse in Shri Balusu Gurulingaswami v. Sri
Balusu Ramaiakshamamma (1899) 26 IA 113,130: 22 Mad. 398, 410.
 95

capability of being begotten by the adopter through niyoga or appointment or the

like”.31
The metaphor of Saunaka implies that only such person should be adopted
whose mother, when maiden, might have been legally married with the adoptive
father. Saunaka does not permit inter-caste adoptions. He has emphasized that
nearer relation should be preferred for adoption then a remote relations.
From the above it clearly follows that the amplification of the texts of
Manu and Vashistha superadded by the metaphor of Saunaka, make a
comprehensive survey of the entire subject of the law of adoption i.e., the
religious and secular objects of adoption are mainly spoken of by Manu and the
rules as to who may adopt whom, why and how are laid down by Vashistha and
Saunaka. In a Supreme Court case it was held that the validity of an adoption has
to be judged by spiritual rather than temporal considerations and devolution of
property is only of secondary importance.32
It may also be noted that ‘Dattaka Chandrika’ and the ‘Dattaka Mimansa’
are tow modem treatises on the law of adoption. They are not the two texts
referred to by Sir Henry Mayne and must not be confused with the word ‘text’
used by Mayne in his statement.
The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, has now codified the
law and has materially modified the law of adoption and now after the
enforcement of this Act, all adoptions shall be made in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and an adoption made in contravention of the provisions of
the Act shall be void.

The entire passage from Saunaka Smriti is cited in parts in the Dat. Mima, in
sereral places (V, 2-21; 112, 74 see Mayne’s Hindu Law and usage, 15th Edition.
P. 443-44.
Chandrasekhara Mudaliar V. K. Mudaliar, 1963 SC 185.
 96

IV. Objectives and purposes of adoptions

As far as the objectives and purposes of adoption axe concerned, there are
mainly two old theories in this regard:-
(A) Secular Theory
In ancient systems of law only Romans and Hindus provided for an
organized institution of adoption. Under both these systems primary objective of
adoption was to provide a child to childless and continue the line.
Under Roman law, adoption had always been a secular act. But under
Hindu law it has always been shrouded with religiosity but underlying purposes
had always been secular according to Mayne. The religious motive for adoption
never altogether excluded the secular motive. Baudhayana while expounding
words to be uttered during the ceremony of adoption says:
“I take thee for fulfillment of religious duties
-I take thee to continue the line of my ancestors.33
The latter words amply show the secular motive of adoption. The Dattaka
Mimansa also says:-
“For the sake of the funeral cake, water and solemn rites, and for the
celebrity of his name.”34
Again latter words reflect temporal aspect of adoption. The secular aspect
of this institution is further apparent by the fact that this institution was also
prevalent, amongst the tribes, which were not under the Brahmanical influence.
This institution existed without any rules prescribed by religious rites. Since
sudras were incompetent to perform religious rites,35 that does not mean that this
institution was not prevalent amongst them. They adopted freely without any
restriction imposed by religion. In Punjab, adoption is common amongst Jats and
Sikhs, but it is not in the sense of religious adoption as prescribed by the texts, but

The whole passage is translated by Dr. Buhler in his Article on Saunaka, Journ.
As Soc. Bengal, 1866, and in his edition of Baudahyana, VII, 5, 11.
34
Dat. Mima; VII, 30-38.
35
Vachaspati, cited in Data Mima, 1,26.
 97

it is appointment of heir under Punjab customary law which had a limited

objective in view, viz., to provide a successor to property of the appointer. Thus,
the objective of adoption is purely secular under Punjab Customary Law.
Similarly, in Western India among Talkbada Koli caste and Kadwa kunbi caste
even though no religious significance was attached to adoption, the right to adopt
has been upheld by the courts.36
Similarly, adoption is prevalent amongst Jains and Hindu law rules of
adoption are applied to them in the absence of a contrary usage/custom. They
totally repudiate the Brahmanical doctrine of obsequial ceremonies, the offerings
of oblations for the salvation of soul of the deceased and do not believe that a son
either by birth or by adoption confers spiritual benefit on the father. Hence
objects and motives of adoption among Jains are purely secular.37
From the aforesaid discussion it is amply clear that motives and objects
behind adoption were more secular and temporal in nature. The sons were not
only required for the protection of the family and the property from rivals but for
supporting the parents in old age. Secular purpose of adoption is also evident
from the adoption by widow-Though a widow by herself or through authorization
may have the power to adopt, she need not adopt unless obliged to do so by the
form of authority; That she did very often adopt from kinsmen in disturbed
times. But Hindu Law had never been devoid of religiosity. Hindu
jurisprudence has always been “Dharma”. Law was interpreted in this light.
Hindu law has always been divine law and never man made. Dharma always
connotes religious and legal obligations. Hence, emerged the religious theory of
adoption.

Bhala Nahana v. Parbhu (1878)2 Bom 67; Patel Vandravan v. Patel Manila
(1892) 16 Bom. 470.
Shersingh v. ML Dukho (1876-78)5IA 87 : I All 688; Dhan Raj v. Sonipai (1925)
52 IA 231, 241 : 52 Cal. 482, 494 Cf. Amava v. Mahagauda (1898) 22 Bom. 416,
422.
38
K.R.R. Sastry : Hindu Jurisprudence. P. 105.
 98

(B) Religious Theory

This theory emanates from the obsession of Hindu to have a son. The
obsession of son is based on the spiritual aspect of Hinduism. Through the
centuries, Brahmanical influence spread and a peculiar religious significance was
attached to the institution of sonship Son was considered essential for spiritual
welfare of the souls of his immediate ancestors. For this, a number of sons
secondary/subsidiary were recognized, though, only adopted son has survived the
times.
There is a rik in Rigveda which indicates the religious function of a son
“O agni Give us this good (wealth) that we get a son, who perform the sacrifice
(yajna) and be of good mind.”39
According to Manu:-
“The father by birth of a son discharges his debt to
his progenitors, through him he attains immortality,
by a son’s son he obtains victory overall people and
by son of that grandson he reaches solar abode.”40
Thus son was required for religious necessity. “The Datrima son should
never take the Gotra or the wealth of the natural father, the panda follows the
gotra and the wealth, and the religious ceremony of the giver ceases.41 This
indicates the effects of giving a child in adoption. Atri and Manu declares that a
son should be adopted by a sonless man for the purpose of the pinda, the water
and other ceremonies and for the celebration of the name.42 The religious
necessity for the existence of the son has been established by independent verses.
By performing the ceremonies of the adoptive father’s ancestors, he celebrates
their name and by the fiction continues their linage. The effect of celebration of
name is not, an independent effect produced by motives and causes outside the

Rigveda VII, 4, 10. Manu Code, V. 106, 107, 137, 138.

1933 PC 155 (158).
Manu, IX, 142.
D.M. I. 3 and 9.
 99

religious view and the consequent fiction of sonship. To view otherwise would be
invest what in the natural cause of things, is the relation of cause and effect.
Vasistha says, “ For through one son the adopter rescues many ancestors”.
Another line of reasoning adopted by the advocates of the religious theory
is that a son is essential for the performance of certain religious duties. It is said
that a Brahmin on being bom becomes a debtor for three obligations: to the Rishis
(who are prominders of sacred books) for studentship (to persue the same); to
Gods, for sacrifices; to the paternal ancestors, for progeny; he is free from the
debts, who has a son, who has performed sacrifies, and who has studied the
Vedas.43 Vasistha says that:
“If a father sees the face of a son bom and living, he
devolves his debts on him and obtains immortality;
it is ordained in the Sruti, Endless are the heavenly
regions of those having sons, heaven awaits not one
who has no male issue.”44
Further it is declared that by the eldest son, as soon as bom, a man becomes a
father; he makes the father debtless, and therefore deserves the whole wealth.
Manu declares that by whom the debts leaves, by whom the endless is got, he is
the son bom by a sense of duty, all the rests are known as children of love.45
Although all these sages talk of a son of the body; but when a person has
failed to get a son of the body, he must adopt a son so that he may devolve his
debts on the adopted son, to save himself from the hell and to obtain immortality.
Thus, according to the Advocates of this theory, a sonless man adopts a
son to pay of his religious debts.
Sir James W. Colvile, speaking for the judicial committee, in collector of
Madura v. Moottoo Ramalinga46 observed: “The power to adopt when not

See Sarkar’s H. L. of adoption p. 43.

Volm. XVII, 1 & 2.
Manu, IX, 117.
12 Moore’s Ind. App. 397 (442).
 100

actually given by the husband can only be exercised when a foundation for it is
laid in the otherwise neglected observance of religious duty, as understood by
Hindus.” The judicial committee again speaking through him in Sri Ragunatha v.
Sri Broze Kishor,47 restated the principle with some modification thus :
“It may be the duty of a court of justice
administering the Hindus to consider the religious
duty of adopting a son as the essential foundation,
and effect of an adoption upon the devolution of
property as a mere legal consequence.”. But he
further added: “It is impossible not to see that there
are grave social objections to making the succession
of property and it may be in the case of collateral
succession, as in the present instance, the rights of
parties in actual possession-dependant on the
caprice of a woman, subject to all the pernicious
influences which interested advisers are too apt in
India to exert over woman possessed of, or capable
of exercising dominion over property.”
The caution by the judicial committee is relied upon to emphasis the point
that rights to the property of the last male holder is a dominant consideration in
the matter of taking a boy in adoption. But if the passage was read alongwith that
preceding it, it would be. obvious that the judicial committee emphasized the
performance of a religious duty as an essential foundation of the law of adoption
though it did not fail to notice that the devolution of property was a legal
consequence.
Mahamood J. in Ganga Sahai v. Lakhrak Singh** said, “I feel that the
conclusion at which we arrive in this court on this point will affect one of the

3 I. A. 154 at P. 193.
9, All. 287.
 101

most solemn rights which the Hindu Law confers upon children Hindus, whose
religious feelings have given rise to the institution of adoption itself....”, .......
“Under Hindu system the beatitude of a deceased Hindu in future life depends
upon the performance of his obsequies and payment of his debts by a son as the
means of redeeming him from an instant state of suffering after death....” Again
he said, “.... The solitary foundation of the Hindu law of adoption is the spiritual
benefits to the soul of a childless Hindu....”. Thus adoption was based on,
religious theory.
In Veeram Basavaraju v. Balasurya,49 Mr. Ameer Ali struck a new note
and laid more emphasis on the property rights. One of the reasons given, as to
why the consent of divided brothers was required, was that they had an interest in
the protection of the inheritance. The judicial Committee observed that ‘Rights to
property cannot be left out of considerations in the determination of the question
of what spinda’s assent is primarily requisite.5 Thus the mind of judicial
committee was wavering between two positions, namely,
(i) whether religious duty was the sole object of adoption or ;
(ii) whether proprietary interests had an equal or subordinate place with or
to that of a religious object.
In Amendra Mansingh v. Santan Singh,50 it reconsidered its earlier decisions,
resurveyed the entire law on the subject and veered round to the view that the
validity of an adoption was to be determined by spiritual rather than temporal
considerations. It was observed:
“It is clear that the foundation of Brahminical
doctrine of adoption is the duty which every Hindu
owed to his ancestors to provide for the
continuation of the line and the solemnization of the
necessary rites.....” . “It may well be that if this

49
AIR 1918 P.C. 97 at P. 101.
50
AIR 1937 P.V. 15 at P. 158.
 102

duty has been passed on to new generation, capable

itself of the continuance, the father’s duty has been
performed and the means provided by him for its
fulfillment spent, the ‘debt’ he owned is discharged
and it is upon the new generation that the duty is
now cast and the burden of debt is now laid”. “It
can, they think, hardly, be doubted that in this
doctrine the devolution of property though
recognized as the inherent right of a son, is
altogether a secondary consideration. --------
Having regard to this well-established doctrine as to
the religious efficacy of sonship, their lordships feel
that great caution should be observed in shutting the
door upon any authorized adoption by the widow of
a sonless man....... Nor do the authoritative texts
appear to limit the exercise of the power by any
considerations of property.”
The Supreme Court referring tot his decision of the Privy council
observed:51 “This decision is, therefore, a clear pronouncement by the highest
judicial authority of the time that the substitution of a son of the deceased for
spiritual reasons is the essence of adoption and the consequent devolution of
property is mere accessory to it.” The Supreme Court further observed that
whatever ambiguity there may have still remained it was dispelled by a later
decision of the Privy Council in Ramasubbayya v. Chenchuramayya,52 wherein
Sir Madhavan Nair, delivering the judgment on behalf of the board, observed: “Its
object is twofold; (1) to secure the performance of the funeral rites of the person
to whom the adoption is made; and (ii) to preserve the continuance of his linage.”

AIR 1963 SC 185 at P. 193.

AIR 1947 P.C. 124 at P. 127.
 103

Referring to the judgment of Mr. Ameer Ali,53 His Lordship observed “The
utmost that could be said in favour of the appellants is the statement in the
judgment that - ‘right to property cannot be left out of consideration in the
determination of the question’, while the spiritual welfare of the deceased also is
referred to in the course of judgment. That the above secular view of adoption
cannot any longer be maintained appears to be clear from the judgment of the
Board in Amendra’s case.”
Regarding the object of adoption, it was remarked the opinion of the
Board delivered in Amarendra’s case should be considered to have settled the
question finally so far as the Board is concerned.
After discussing all the decisions of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court
said : “It may safely be held that the validity of an adoption has to be judged by
spiritual rather than temporal consideration and that devolution of property is only
of secondary importance.54
Thus from the examination of the above decisions of the highest Courts of
the time in the country it is clear that the origin and the object of adoption lies in
the spiritual and the religious feelings of the Hindus. It was due to this fact
woman could not adopt. A widow, under certain circumstances was allowed to
take a son in a adoption, but she was allowed to do so if her husband had died
without a male issue, had expressed a desire to adopt a son and had authorized her
to adopt a son to him. It was an adoption by widow to her deceased husband.
The theory of relation back was applied and the adoption was related back to the
date of death of her husband. A daughter could not be adopted because no
religious benefit could be expected from such adoption. She also could not
continue line of the family. As the purpose of adoption was both secular and
religious, it was not that any one could be adopted. There were many restrictions
regarding the son to be adopted.

AIR 1948 P. C. 97.

AIR 1963 SC 185 P. 193.
 104

Although, the widely prevalent theories of the origin of adoption are two
i.e. religious and secular; but according to Dr. U.C. Sarkar it is illogical to support
that there are only these two possible types of views or theories. He says that it
may be that the origin of the adoption was promoted both by religious and secu^fr,’
considerations; it may also so appear that the motive behind adoption was neither
religious nor secular; or it may also be so conceived that the consideration for
adoption was originally secular and subsequently it became religious, or it is also
not inconsistent to think that the primary motive was a religious and the secular
elements came to be attached to it later on; adoption again might be resorted to
merely for satisfying the sentiment of possessing a son, the very possession of
whom was a matter of pride and pleasure; or it might be also that the Hindus had
no well-defined theory at all.55
The object of adoption is neither alone secular nor religious. It may be
religious as well as secular-religious for the purpose of offering funeral cake,
oblation of water etc., and secular for finding a suitable person who may help in
old days, inherit the property and continue the name and tradition of the family.
Or it may be that the object of adoption may be religious for one party and secular
for another party, as the Privy council observed.”
“Though it may be conceded that in the majority of cases the object of the
adopter is religious, the object of the giver and of the person adopted (if he is
grown up) is far from religious. The main object of the later two, atleast in the
modem times, is to secure wealth without effort and hardly any religious motives
enter into their minds. No one gives a son in adoption to a poor man, though a
poor man has a soul to save as much as a rich man. Besides in adoption by
widows, their motives is very often far from religious. They often adopt out of
pique against their husband’ brother or nephews and for benefiting themselves

55
Dr. Sarkar on Marriage and Soriship.
 105

monetarily by making agreements with the adopted sons to share the property
with them.”56
(C) Modern Theory of Adoption: Child Welfare Theory
In the present age the concept of adoption has undergone a sea change.
Today adoption can serve very important social purpose in developing countries
like India. In our country there are a large number of orphans, abandoned,
handicapped and destitute children. Such children are in needs of homes and
parents. On the other sides, there are a large number of the peoples in India and
abroad who do not have children. Adoption serves the object of providing homes
for homeless children apd for providing richer family life to those persons who
have no children or who have only one child and wants to adopt another child. In
most of the Western countries one can adopt several children and one need not to
be childless but under Hindu Law one cannot adopt more than one son and one
daughter. The restriction on adoption is not going to serve any useful purpose.
After the killing of Tsunami hundred of thousands of children have become
orphans. Thousands of such children are in India alone and need to be adopted by
people who can give them love and affection, shelter, education and the care of
parents. But unfortunately, in India the laws of adoption are very inadequate and
discriminatory.
Thus, a new theory i.e. the child welfare theory has emerged with the
passage of time. Now adoption is serving double purposes. It is providing child
to the childless and homes and parents to the orphans, destitute and illegitimate
children who may be living in neglected and inhuman conditions. The pious
purpose of adoption maybe served in a better manner if the people shows more
concern for such orphans and homeless children. Thus, the modem theory
regarding adoption appears to be more appropriate in modem days where the
welfare of children has been given atmost importance in all laws. Any Law of
adoption must be centred on the following premises :

56
Amrendra’s cae. 60 I.A. 242.
 106

(a) Child’s interest is the primary consideration and it outweighs all other
considerations
(b) Adoption is primarily a child-welfare service
(c) Adoption, which is the most desirable form of substitute for children,
should be provided as early as possible.
(d) The Primary object of adoptions is to provide a home, to the child. If the
child gets a home with love and affection, inheritance and property rights
will follow, they are secondary.
V. Reasons for Adoption
The reasons for adoption vary from country to country. Adoption occurs
for many reasons. Some of the reasons are given below:
(1) Birth parents may like to give their children in adoption if there are unable
to adequately care for the child.
(2) In US and UK, the children leave their homes because of maltreatment by
their birth parents. Such children are available for adoption.
(3) Sometimes birth parents are not in the position to raise a child, doing so
would interfere with their future plans and goals, gender preference, or
societal stigma of single motherhood. In other countries, such as china,
social policies lead to abandonment of large numbers of children who are
then placed in orphanages, some of whom are then adopted.
(4) In some countries some biological parents involuntarily lose their parental
rights. This may occur when children are abused, neglected or abandoned.
Eventually, if the parents cannot resolve the problems that caused or
contributed to the harm caused to their children (such as Alcohol or Drug
Abuse), a court may terminate their parental rights and the children may
then be adopted.
(5) In some cases, parents’ rights have been terminated when their ethnic or
cultural group has been deemed unfit by the controlling government.
Historically, Aboriginal Peoples in Australia were affected by such
 107

policies, as were Native Americans in the Untied States and Canada.

Moreover, unwed mothers in many countries still are often pressured or
forced by families, religious bodies or governments to relinquish their
children for adoption. These practices of the past have become
emotionally-charged social and political issues in recent years.
(6) The inability to biologically reproduce is also a common reason, for
adoption. Some single people and same-sex couples often adopt because
of the lack of a partner of the opposite sex or a lack of desire to use a
surrogate or sperm donor. In many Western countries, step-parent
adoption is the most common from of adoption as people choose to
cement a new family following divorce or death of one parent.
(7) Some fertile couples or individuals adopt children. Some may choose to
do this in order to avoid contributing to perceived overpopulation, or out
of the belief that it is more responsible to care for otherwise parent-less
children than to reproduce. Others may do so to avoid passing on
inheritable diseases or out of health concerns relating to pregnancy and
childbirth. Still others feel that given challenges carrying a baby to term,
adoption is the best way to grow a family. Others believe that it is an
equally valid form of family building, neither better than nor worse than
the biological route.
(8) After disasters like hurricanes, tsunamis, and wars there is often an out­
pouring of offers from adults who wants to give homes to the children left
in need. Adoption is the best way to provide stable and loving families for
children in need.
(9) In India there are a large number of orphans, neglected and abandoned
children. People who wants a richer family life may like to adopt, so that
such children may be properly nourished and may be rehabilitated.
 108

(10) In India, even after the passing of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance
1956, the Hindus show keeners to adopts sons keeping in view the
religious and secular motives in consideration.
VI. Different Forms of Adoption in Past and Present
During the ancient period a number of secondary sons were recognized
among Hindus. However, with the progress of the society these secondary sons
were eliminated as unchastity of woman was condemned and illegitimate sons
were disapproved. In order to give prominence to legitimate sons doctrine of
spiritual benefits was introduced. It was propagated that no spiritual benefit can
be conferred by the illegitimate sons. Thus, with the passage of time the
illegitimate and most of the secondary sons became obsolete and outdated and
only two forms of sons i.e. natural bom legitimate son and adopted son came to
be recognized. For the purpose of different forms of adoption, it maybe clarified
that during the ancient time five different types of adopted sons were recognized.
But after the passing of the Hindu adoption and maintenance Act only one type of
adopted son is recognized. However, the adopted son might have different status,
different relationship and different types of rights in the adopted family. All this
depends upon the facts of adoption. Now in present day, there are various forms
of adoption some of which are only of historical significance.
1. Shastrik Form of Adoptions
Right from the Vedic Period to this date Shastrick form of adoption has been
recognized. The adopted son has been given the same status and position as is
given to a natural bom son. For the validity of adoption a number of conditions
were prescribed under old law. For instance Manu says only the sonless person
has the capacity to adopt a son. Every Hindu who is of sound mind and has
attained the age of discretion may lawfully take a son in adoption provided, he has
no son, grand son or great grand son, natural or adopted. Under old Hindu law a
widow could take a son in adoption if expressly authorized by the husband or his
Kinsmen. Thus, under the old Hindu law also there were certain essential
 109

conditions which were to be satisfied for the validity of adoption. The Hindu
Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956, has brought major changes regarding the
status, rights and the capacity to take a child or to give a child in adoption. The
old law has been modified to a greater extent. However, one may adopt in
Shastric form if the conditions given in the Act are satisfied.
2. Customary Adoptions
The customary form of adoption is not universal through out the whole of
India. This form shows vide variation in the same state also. The people
belonging to the same tribe living in different parts of the State may not practice a
common custom. Customary form of adoption in Punjab has no religious
sanction behind it.57 It is purely a secular institution and the expression
‘appointment of heir’ would be more appropriate, A customary adoption in
Punjab is ordinarily no more than a mere appointment of a heir creating the
personal relationship between the adoptive father and the appointed heir only58
There is no tie of kinship between the appointed heir and the collaterals of the
adoptive father. The appointed heir does not acquire the right to succeed
collaterally in the adoptive father’s family. The status of appointed heir is totally
different from that of an adopted son. In Punjab, this type of adoption is common
among Jats and Sikhs. But predominant objective in their case is to appoint an
heir. Only a male can be appointed. The appointment of a female is not
recognized by the Punjab Customary Law. No religious ceremonies are
performed. The formalities necessary for such type of adoption are :
(1) a formal declaration of adoption before brotherhood,
(2) general treatment of the appointed heir as a son. A mere declaration or even
execution of the deed of adoption unaccompanied by precedent or subsequent

(Rala Vs. Buddha, per Plowden SJ. 50 PR 1893, P. 223).

Mela Singh Vs. Gurdas, 1922 Lah. 433 (F.B.), Keher Singh Vs. Dewan Singh,
1966 SC 1555(1557): Kehar Singh v. Dewan Singh 1966 SC 155. the general
custom negating the right of the appointed heir to succeed collaterally in the
family of the adoptive father's stated in Art 49 of Rattigan Digest of customary
Law 13th Ed. P. 52.
 110

treatment is insufficient.59 The adoptee under customary adoption retain his right
of succession to the estate of the natural father. In the adopted family he succeeds
to the adopter only and the right of collateral succession does not exist. An
adoptee does not snap his ties in the natural family and no ties of blood
relationship are established in the adoption family.60
The collaterals cannot contest the validity of an adoption. So far as non
ancestral property is concerned.61 As the object of such adoption is purely secular
the son may be adopter by a sonless person to secure for himself a companion
who will give support in old age and to make provision for him in return for his
services.62 This type of customary appointment of heir is almost unknown in old
Delhi territory and the surrounding areas. An appointment of heir once lawfully
made cannot be revoked by the adoptive father. An adoptive father cannot
disinherit his appointed heir for misconduct, disobedience or neglect to support
his adoptive father. He cannot bequeath all his property to others and thereby
disentitle the appointed son of his right to succeed to the adoptive father.63 The
appointee succeeds to the appointer properties and would share equally with the
subsequently natural bom son of the appointer. The question of validity of
customary form of adoption came for consideration before the Supreme Court in
Kartar Singh v. Surjan Singh & Others.64 It was held by the court that after the
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 came into force, there is no room for
any customary adoption. Section 4 of the Act specifically provides that any text,
rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage as part of that law in
force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect
with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act.

(1967 SC 119).
Isharv. Hukam Singh (1923) Lah. 485.
Surain Singh v. Jawahir Singh, 20 IC 839.
Supra Note 57.
(1957 PLR 146). See D.C. Manooja, Adoption Law and Practice P. 33.
(1974) 2 SCC 559.
 111

Therefore, the question of customary adoption as was in force in Punjab

before this Act came into force, does not any longer arise.
Other type of adoption by custom is known as Illatom adoption. It has
been in vogue in certain communities of the old Madras presidency. It was purely
result of custom and judicial recognition was given to it. It is a affiliation of a
son-in-law in consideration of assistance in the management of the family
property.65 The two essential conditions for this adoption are that the adopted
must marry the daughter of the adopter and that there should be an agreement to
give him a share, which must be fulfilled. As a matter of fact, the adoptee son-in-
law does not become an adopted son in the real sense of adoption. He does not
loose his rights in his natural family. He does not become coparcener in the
family of adoption. Consequently, doctrine of survivorship does not apply in that
case. He cannot claim partition with the father-in-law. In respect of the property
or share that he may get, he takes it as his separate and self acquired property.66
Apart from any special custom, the descendant of an Illatom son-in-law, cannot
claim right of collateral succession to the estate of the last holder of the estate.
Another form of adoption called Dvyamushyayana is also known. In this
form son is taken in adoption under an agreement that he should be the son of
both the natural and adoptive fathers. In this form of Adoption, it is essential to
prove such agreement and it should also be proved that there was ceremony of
giving and taking in adoption.67 A Dwyamsushiyayana inherits both in his natural
and adoptive families.68 In Allahand case69 it has been held that “the adoption of
this form depends upon and has its efficacy in the stipulation entered into at the
time of adoption between the natural father and the adoptive father and not upon

(Me. Whinnie AM.: Adopted children-How they Grow up, 1967 P. 36).
(Florence Rondell & Anee. Marie Murray: New Dimensions in Adoption, 1974
P.1).
DhaniBaiv. Neem Kanwar MR 1972 Raj. 91.
M. Muthiah v. Collector of Estate Duty Madras, AIR 1986 SC 1863.
Behari Lai v. Shivalal AlR 1904 26 All. 472.
 112

any ceremonies by the former. If Dvyamashyayana dies, his property is taken

jointly and equally by the adoptive mother and the natural mother.
Another customary form of adoption recognized was Kritrima forms of
adoption. A person could be adopted in this form independently of his wife and
vice-versa, the only requisite being the consent of both parties. This kind of
adoption could be made either by a man or woman or jointly by both husband and
wife, but when it was made by a woman it was made to herself and not to her
husband and no consent of the husband was necessary. This form of adoption
was made with the express object that the adopted person should perform the
exequial rights of the adopter and that he should inherit his right. Although, a
Duttaka Son had to perform such ceremonies of his adoptive father, his right to
inherit was not dependent on the condition of his performing the ceremonies. In
this form, the adopted son was the son of the husband or the wife whoever
adopted him. This form of adoption was a usual form in Mithila and Surrounding
areas. After passing of the Hindu Adoption and maintenance Act, 1956, all
customary forms of Adoptions has become obsolete.
3. Institutional Adoptions
Under old Hindu law of adoption, destitute or abandoned child could not
be adopted. Such children were kept in charitable and welfare institutions and
were not available for adoption. But with the passage of time, the object of
adoption have changed and welfare of children is a paramount consideration in all
countries. These institutions are unable to meet the fundamental needs of love
and affection and above all cannot provide them the normal status of an ordinary
citizen. The institutions are also unable to provide proper care for large number
of such children because of financial constraints. The only alternative left was to
permit the institutions to give such unfortunate children in adoption to families
deprived of affection of their own children. The Hindu Adoption and
maintenance Act, 1956 provides for the adoption of orphans, illegitimate and
abandoned children. This Act authorized the guardian to give his ward in
 113

adoption with the permission of the Court. Before 1962, the guardian means
Dejure guardian i.e. a testamentary guardian or a guardian appointed by the Court.
Thus, the institution still could not give their wards in adoption as they were
defecto guardians. In 1962 the Hindu adoption and maintenance Act, 1956 was
amended as to include in the term guardian both Dejure and defecto guardians.
Therefore, the Manager, Secretary or any person Incharge of an orphanage can
give the ward-child of the institution in adoption. However, the person giving the
children in adoption is not to make a profit for himself or herself or the institution.
The children cannot be allowed to be sold in the garb of adoption. Some of these
institutions are doing very good jobs. Even, the Courts have also accepted the
importance of these welfare institutions. As already pointed out, the modem
concept of institutional adoption owes much to the after math of the second world
war.70 Adoption begun to be seen as a way of providing unwanted illegitimate,
neglected, uncared and unclaimed children in hospitals with a family. By
adoption of such children, a child becomes a members of the family and enjoys
the same right which are enjoyed by a bom child. There is an urgent need to
promote and give more financial assistance to such institutions who are involved
in this pious job.
4. Inter-Country Adoptions
There is no statutory enactment in India providing for adoption of a child
by a Foreign parent. The efforts for providing a uniform law of adoption
applicable to all the communities has not been successful. The Adoption of
Children Bill, 1980 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December, 1980
containing an express provision that it shall not be applicable to the Muslim
community. However, this bill could not take the shape on an Act.
The children are the human resources and the future of a country depends
upon the proper care and growth of children. Therefore, it is the first and for most
duty of a welfare state to formulate its policy and programmes, in such a way that

70
Dr. D.C. Manooja, Adoption Law of Practice. P. 36.
 114

they may be helpful in promoting the welfare of the children in the society.
Family can play the most important role in this regard. However, with the
passage of time, the problems of divorce, abandonment of children, termination of
pregnancy, poverty, drugs etc. have shadowed the welfare of children in our
society. These social evils have resulted in serious types of social and family
problems. The children are worst effected by these social problems in our
society.
As already emphasized, adoption is considered as a very effective method
of care and rehabilitation of destitute, orphans and neglected children all over the
world. Infact, India is legging behind in this regard, as we have no uniform law
related to adoption. In this electronic age the world has become much smaller.
i

But the world is sharply divided into developed and under-developed countries.
In developed countries, the birth rate is falling, whereas, in under developed
countries the birth rate is going high. Thus, the under developed countries are
facing different types of problems. In such a situation inter-country adoption has
become very popular with the passage of time. But in India, we have no written
law in this regard. In view of the malpractices indulged in by social organizations
and voluntary agencies engaged in the work of giving orphan children in adoption
to foreign parents, a writ petition was initiated in the Supreme Court on the basis
of a letter written by an Advocate of the Supreme Court. This letter was
converted into a writ petition and the Supreme Court gave necessary guidelines
in L.K. Pandey Vs. Union of India,71 In order to stop any malpractices and
trafficking in children by the voluntary organization, the Court laid down a
detailed procedure to be followed for adoption for Indian children by the Foreign
parents. Keeping in view the social economic condition prevailing in developing
countries, it is not possible to provide good living conditions to the destitute, half
clad, half hungry and suffering from malnutrition and illness. Thus, with this
objective mind inter-country adoption has been recognized by the Supreme Court

71
AIR 1984, SC 469.
 115

and the Supreme Court has laid down elaborate guidelines. The central
Government has also issued administrative directions in this regard.
5. Others Forms of Adoptions in Foreign Countries
The detail in this regard is given in Chapter VIII of the study. There are some
other form of Adoption which are common in foreign countries. They are given
below
(i) Domestic Adoption
In most jurisdictions, adoption begins with the decision of the birth parents
to place their unborn baby or child which another family. Birth parents may get
to choose what family they would like their child to belong to. Depending on
jurisdiction and local law, they may know of a family already who wants to adopt,
or they may find people who want to adopt by going to a lawyer, social services,
or by finding a private or state agency that facilitates adoptions. Privately
arranged adoptions are illegal in some jurisdictions. The birth parents may have
the option of choosing whether they want an open, semi-open, or closed adoption.
The birth parents may be given Parent Profiles to look at and choose from. Or, if
they desire, they can have the agency choose a family for them.
(ii) Open adoption
Open adoption is where the adopted person has access to his/her file
and/or original records. This may be a right available at certain ages- e.g., at age
18, a person adopted in the United Kingdom becomes entitled to their birth
certificate and may access to their adoption records.
Another definition of “open adoption” is where birth parents decide that
they would like to meet the adoptive parents before they choose to place their
baby with them. If the birth parents are comfortable with the family, the
relationship may continue to grow. Even when the adoption is finalized, the
relationship is very personal, and can include yearly pictures, visits, phone calls,
letters, or e-mails. The adopted child can meet his/her birth family and
communication is as open as the parties involved decide upon.
 116

(iii) Semi-open adoption

Birth parents may meet the adoptive parent(s) one or several times, and
then have no more physical contact. Letters and/or pictures may be exchanged
directly or via a third party throughout the years.
(iv) Closed adoption
In a closed adoption, the biological parents and adoptive parents do not
exchange information or have any personal contact. Only a few states require a
direct exchange of information between birth parents and adoptive parents.
However, all states have laws establishing whether court files regarding adoptions
are to be open or closed. If the files are open, state laws regulate who has access
to them and when they may be examined. Some state agencies have additional
policies regarding thee issues.
(v) Foster care adoption
Foster care adoption is a type of domestic adoption where the child is
placed in a foster care system and is subsequently placed for adoption. The
children are placed in foster care for a variety of reasons, primarily because the
child has been removed from the home of the birth family by a governmental
agency because of maltreatment of the child by the birth family. Maltreatment
can take the form off neglect or abuse. In most adoptions regarding foster
children, the foster parents decide to adopt and become the legal parents. Most
adoptions in the U.S., Canada, and the UK occur through the foster care system.
These adoptions can be open or closed.
(vi) Adoption vs Foster care
Adoption differs from foster care, a situation in which a child is
temporarily placed with a foster family. An adopted child becomes a permanent
member of the new family, with all the rights and privileges of a biological child,
including the right of inheritance. Adoptive parents gain the right to make
decisions in the child’s best interest regarding such issues as medical treatment
and education.
 117

Foster care, on the other hand, is designed to provide temporary care for children,
usually by child welfare agencies. Some of these children are voluntarily placed
in foster care when circumstances, such as a serious illness, prevent their parents
from caring for them. In cases of child abuse or neglect, social service agencies
may remove children involuntarily and place them with foster parents. Most
foster placements are made with the intention of re-uniting the biological family
at a later time. Agencies also place children in foster care while searching for
adoptive parents. Families wishing to adopt a child sometimes serve as foster
parents for the child until the adoption can be completed. The adoption process
involves ‘Pre-adoption counseling’ and the preparation of the ‘Home study
report’.
Thus, adoption as a social Institution has undergone change with the
passage of time. Now its objectives and purposes have considerably changed.
The religious motive of adoption has gone in background. It is the secular and
welfare motives which dominate the scene. Child welfare theory has been folly
recognized. Adoption is serving the object of providing homes for homeless and
richer family to those persons who have no children or who have only one child
and want to adopt another child. However, the reasons of adoption may vary
from case to case. The customary forms of Adoption have become invalid after
the passing of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The Institutional
Adoptions are also gaining importance in modem times. Some of the institutions
are doing excellent job in this regard. There is urgent need to grant liberal finance
help to such institutions, so that they may be able provide better facilities to those
children who are living under their care and protection. It is unfortunate that there
is no law for Inter-Country Adoptions. The Inter-country adoptions are not free
from misuse. Now Adoption is not a religious but a secular act. The performance
of religious ceremonies is no longer essential for the validity of adoption. But this
does not mean an adoption for religious purpose can not be made. However, the
welfare of the child is the primary consideration in the new trend.