# Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr v. Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 4 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-03
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 6794 of 2019
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/madhuri-shrivastav-anr-v-sri-praveen-kumar-shrivastav-ors-47037
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
,1908 - Order XXIX Rule 2A - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1995 - Section 9 , Section13
and Section 26, Section 28-A - Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -
Section 6 (a) - Natural guardians of a
Hindu minor - where a boy and a girl are
major and they are living with their free
will, then, nobody including their parents,
has authority to interfere with their living
- any interim order passed during the
pendency of the case will merged with the
final judgment. (Para - 17,25)

Petitioner no.1 along-with her daughter filed the
present petition - prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case under Section 28-A of the
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindu Marriage Act read with Order 39 Rule 2-A
of the C.P.C. - pending in the court of
Additional Judge, Family Court - petitioner no.1
got marriage with respondent no.1 - seeking
direction commanding the respondent No.1 to
pay to petitioners with simple interest - in
compliance of the judgment/decree passed by
the Court below in Marriage Case .

HELD:- Since the petitioner no.2 has now
become major nobody can compel her including
her father to stay with him or to meet with his
father from time to time , as such no benefit
could be given to the respondent no.1 in so far
as Section 6(a) of the Act, 1956 is concerned.
The main case has already been decided by the
court below. The interim order passed to the
effect that the respondent no.1 will be
permitted to meet with his daughter namely
petitioner no.2/Ms.Vaishnavi has not been
complied with during the pendency of the
aforesaid case. Respondent no.1 has attained
the age of majority and as such the aforesaid
orders has now become without any substance.
(Para - 18,19)

Petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

4 All. Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr. Vs. Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors.
147
by the Authorities below, confiscation of
the petitioner's tractor cannot be ordered.
The
learned
Sessions
Judge,
while
affirming the Collector's order, has not at
all
bestowed
consideration
to
the
infirmities, procedural and substantive,
vitiating the order of confiscation. The
order passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge is also bad on the same score, as the
Collector's. It goes without saying that if in
the criminal case instituted on the basis of
the same facts arising from the FIR relating
to Case Crime No. 413 of 2016, under
Section 3/7 of the Act of 1955, Police
Station - Paraur, District - Shahjahanpur,
the petitioner is convicted at the trial, it
would be open to the learned Judge to pass
appropriate orders regarding confiscation
of the tractor-trolley in question, subject, of
course, to his discretion, in the exercise of
powers under Section 7(1)(c) of the Act of
1955.

17. In the result, this writ petition
succeeds
and
stands
allowed.
The
impugned order dated 05.06.2017, passed
by the District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur,
and the order dated 05.09.2017 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3,
Shahajahanpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 38
of 2017, are hereby set aside.

18. Let the petitioner's tractor, bearing
Registration No. UP 27 Y 1676, of
Sonalika make, blue in colour, be returned
to him forthwith, upon the petitioner
executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.
1 lac and undertaking to produce the
tractor-trolley before the Trial Court, if and
when required, and not to change its coat,
colour or appearance, or damage or destroy
it, or transfer it to a third party. However, if
the trial is not pending, no such bond is
required to be furnished before release. In
the event the confiscated tractor has
been auctioned, its price equivalent to the
sum determined by the Collector vide order
dated 05.06.2017 payable by the petitioner
in lieu of confiscation, that is to say, Rs.
4,61,700/- shall be paid to the petitioner by
the State, forthwith.
----------
(2021)04ILR A147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Matter Under Article 227 No. 6794 of 2019

Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri V.R. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava (In Person),
Dhruv Narayan Mishra

(A) Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure
,1908 - Order XXIX Rule 2A - Hindu
Marriage Act, 1995 - Section 9 , Section13
and Section 26, Section 28-A - Hindu
Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 -
Section 6 (a) - Natural guardians of a
Hindu minor - where a boy and a girl are
major and they are living with their free
will, then, nobody including their parents,
has authority to interfere with their living
- any interim order passed during the
pendency of the case will merged with the
final judgment. (Para - 17,25)

Petitioner no.1 along-with her daughter filed the
present petition - prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case under Section 28-A of the
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Hindu Marriage Act read with Order 39 Rule 2-A
of the C.P.C. - pending in the court of
Additional Judge, Family Court - petitioner no.1
got marriage with respondent no.1 - seeking
direction commanding the respondent No.1 to
pay to petitioners with simple interest - in
compliance of the judgment/decree passed by
the Court below in Marriage Case .

HELD:- Since the petitioner no.2 has now
become major nobody can compel her including
her father to stay with him or to meet with his
father from time to time , as such no benefit
could be given to the respondent no.1 in so far
as Section 6(a) of the Act, 1956 is concerned.
The main case has already been decided by the
court below. The interim order passed to the
effect that the respondent no.1 will be
permitted to meet with his daughter namely
petitioner no.2/Ms.Vaishnavi has not been
complied with during the pendency of the
aforesaid case. Respondent no.1 has attained
the age of majority and as such the aforesaid
orders has now become without any substance.
(Para - 18,19)

Petition disposed off. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Gian Devi Vs The Superintendent, Nari
Niketan, Delhi & ors., (1976) 3 SCC 234

2. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr., (2006) 5 SCC
475

3. Bhagwan Dass Vs State (NCT of Delhi),
(2011) 6 SCC 396

4. Deepika & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2013 (9)
ADJ 534

5. National Bal Bhawan & anr. Vs U.O.I. & ors. ,
(2003) 9 SCC 671

6. St. of W.B. & ors. Vs. Banibrata Ghosh & ors.,
(2009) 3 SCC 250

7. Prem Chandra Agarwal & anr. Vs U.P.
Financial Corporation & ors., (2009) 11 SCC 479

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

 1. Pursuant to the order passed by
this Court on 2.3.2021 both the petitioners
namely Smt. Madhuri Shrivastav and Ms.
Vaishnavi appeared in person before this
Court. The respondent no.1/Praveen Kumar
Shrivastav also appeared in person.

2. Mr. Dhruv Narayan Mishra, who
was appointed Amicus Curiae by order of
this Court dated 26.2.2020, is also present
to assist the Court.

3. The petitioners have preferred
present petition with the following prayers
:-

"1. Issue an order of certiorari
quashing entire proceedings of Case
No.13/2013 (Praveen Kumar Srivastav Vs.
Smt Madhuri Srivastav), U/s 28A of Hindu
Marriage Act, read with Order XXIX Rule
2A of CPC, pending before the Additional
Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, imposing
heavy cost to the respondent No.1.

2.
Issue
another
order
or
direction commanding the respondent No.1
to pay sum of Rs.2,83,600/- to petitioners
with simple interest since January, 2015,
within a stipulated period of time, in
compliance of the judgment/decree dated
17.01.2015, passed by the Court below in
Marriage Case No.291/2003.

3. Issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may
found deem fit and proper with the facts
and circumstances of the case. So that
justice be done.

4. To award cost to the petition
from respondent No.1."

4. It is stated by petitioner no.1/Smt.
Madhuri Shrivastav that she is a teacher in
4 All. Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr. Vs. Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors.
149
Jagat
Taran
Golden
Jubilee
School,
Allahabad since 2006 and the petitioner
no.2/Ms. Vaishnavi was pursing her B.A. II
Examination from Allahabad University,
Allahabad at the time when the present
petition was filed. At present she is
studying at B.A. III.

5. The date of birth of petitioner no.2
is 13.3.2000 and now she became major. It
appears from perusal of the record that
petitioner no.1 namely Smt. Madhuri
Shrivastav, daughter of late Trilokinath
Shrivastav along-with her daughter namely
Ms. Vaishnavi filed the present petition
inter-alia with the prayer to quash the entire
proceeding of Case No.13 of 2013 under
Section 28-A of the Hindu Marriage Act
read with Order 39 Rule 2-A of the C.P.C.
pending in the court of Additional Judge,
Family Court, Allahabad. It appears from
perusal of the record that the petitioner
no.1/Madhuri Shrivastav got marriage with
Praveen Kumar Shrivastav in the year
1998. After two years of marriage from
their
wedlock
a
daughter,
petitioner
no.2/Km. Vaishnavi, was born. Thereafter,
family members of the respondent no.1
Praveen
Kumar
Shrivastav
started
harassing the petitioner no.1-Smt. Madhuri
Shrivastav.

6. It further reveals from perusal of
the record that the respondent no.1/Praveen
Kumar Shrivastav preferred Case No.291
of 2003 (Praveen Kumar Shrivastav Vs.
Smt. Madhuri Shrivastav), under Section 9
and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Apart
from the same, another case was filed by
him being Marriage Case No.507 of 2004,
under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act before the court below. The Case
No.291 of 2003, which was filed under
Section 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, was decreed partly while Case
No.507 of 2004, which was filed under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
rejected vide judgment and decree dated
17.1.2015. Though Case No.507 of 2004
was finally decided on 17.1.2015 but
during the pendency of the aforesaid case
various interlocutory orders were passed
from time to time. By the aforesaid orders
directions were given to the respondent
no.1 to meet with his minor daughter. Since
the aforesaid orders were not complied
with, an application was filed by the
respondent no.1 in the court below under
Order 39 Rule 2-A of the CPC which was
numbered as Misc. Case No.13 of 2013. In
the aforesaid case an application being
Paper No.33-C dated 03.05.2019 was also
filed by the respondent no.1 with the
allegation that the petitioners are still
flouting
order
dated
03.05.2005
and
03.06.2010.

7. It further appears from perusal of
the record that the Family Court, Allahabad
also directed the Station House Officer,
Mutthiganj, District Prayagraj to permit the
respondent no.1/Praveen Kumar Shrivastav
to meet with his daughter namely Ms.
Vaishnavi/petitioner
no.2
on
second
Sunday of every month between 4.00 to
6.00 P.M.

8. In view of the aforesaid, petitioners
have preferred present petition.

9. It is stated by the petitioner no.1
that in the proceedings initiated by the
respondent no.1 by filing a suit being Suit
No.291 of 2003, under Section 9 and 13 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1995 an order was
passed by the Additional Judge, Family
Court, Allahabad on 17.1.2015. By the
aforesaid order petition filed by the
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plaintiff/respondent no.1 for divorce was
allowed. Further directions were given to
the plaintiff/respondent no.1 in the petition
to make payment of Rs.2,83,600/- to the
petitioner no.1. Since the aforesaid order
was not complied with a prayer has been
made by the petitioner no.1 in the present
petition for compliance of the aforesaid
order.

10. Apart from a petition under
Section 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act for divorce another petition was filed
by the respondent no.1 being petition
No.507 of 2004 in the Family Court,
Allahabad under Section 26 of the Hindu
Marriage Act. The said petition was also
finally disposed of by the Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad,
vide order dated 17.1.2015. The aforesaid
petition filed by the plaintiff/respondent
no.1 was dismissed by the court below
giving cogent reasons.

11. A specific query has been made
by the Court from the respondent no.1 that
whether the order dated 17.1.2015 passed
in Case No.507 of 2004 filed under Section
26 of the Hindu Marriage Act was
challenged by him before any other forum
or not. It is stated by him that a fresh
petition was filed under the same section
i.e. under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage
Act.

12. It is argued by him that the
aforesaid case was also dismissed by the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad.
The specific date has not been disclosed by
him. In so far as the order dated 17.1.2015
passed in Matrimonial Case No.291 of
2003, which was filed under Section 9 and
13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in which the
decree of divorce was passed and directions
were given to make the payment of
Rs.2,83,600/- is concerned, it is stated that
against the aforesaid order a review petition
has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent
no.1 in the court of Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Allahabad being
Review Petition No.8 of 2015, copy of the
same is appended as annexure 8 to the
present petition.

13. It is admitted by both the parties
that aforesaid review petition is still
pending and no final decision has been
taken on the same.

14. The date of birth of the petitioner
no.2 namely Ms. Vaishnavi is 13.3.2000
and now she has became major. It is stated
by her that she is not willing to meet with
her father. It is further stated by her that
since she is major hence she is free to live
according to her own wishes and nobody
can compel her to meet with her father.

15. On the other hand it is argued by
respondent no.1 that various orders were
passed by the Family Court, Allahabad,
from time to time by which the petitioner
no.2 was permitted to meet with her father
namely respondent no.1/Praveen Kumar
Shrivastav but those orders were not
complied with and as such contempt
petition was also filed by him in the Family
Court, Allahabad, which is still pending
even today.

16. From perusal of the entire records
it appears that two petitions are pending
consideration before the court below
namely Contempt Petition No.13 of 2013
as well as Review Petition No.8 of 2015.

17. The Supreme Court in a long line
of decisions has settled the law that where a
boy and a girl are major and they are living
with their free will, then, nobody including
4 All. Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr. Vs. Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors.
151
their parents, has authority to interfere with
their living. Reference may be made to the
judgements of the Supreme Court in the
cases of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent,
Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3
SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and
another,
(2006)
5
SCC
475;
and,
Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently
been followed by the Supreme Court and
this Court, as well as of this Court in
Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and
others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme
Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as
under: -

"7. ... Whatever may be the date
of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains
that she is at present more than 18 years of
age.

As the petitioner is sui juris no
fetters can be placed upon her choice of the
person with whom she is to stay, nor can
any restriction be imposed regarding the
place where she should stay. The court or
the relatives of the petitioner can also not
substitute their opinion or preference for
that of the petitioner in such a matter."

18. In view of the aforesaid, the Court
is of the opinion that since the petitioner
no.2 has now become major nobody can
compel her including her father to stay with
him or to meet with his father from time to
time.

19. In so far as the relief as prayed
by the petitioners in the present petition
that the court below namely Principal
Judge, Family Court, Allahabad be
directed to decide the proceedings of
Case No.13 of 2013 filed by the
plaintiff/respondent no.1 is concerned, it
is clear from perusal of the record that
the main case has already been decided
by the court below on 17.1.2015. The
interim order passed to the effect that the
respondent no.1 will be permitted to meet
with his daughter namely petitioner
no.2/Ms.Vaishnavi has not been complied
with during the pendency of the aforesaid
case. As stated above now the respondent
no.1 has attained the age of majority and
as such the aforesaid orders has now
become without any substance.

20. Respondent no.1 placed reliance
Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. It is argued that
in case a boy or an unmarried girl-the
father, and after him, the mother:
provided the custody of a minor who has
not completed the age of five years shall
ordinarily be with the mother.

21. The statement of objects and
reasons attained in the Act, 1956 reads as
follows :-

"Statement of Objects and ReasonsThis is another instalment of the Hindu
Code and it deals with the law relating to
minority and guardianship.

2. Under the Indian Majority Act,
1875, a person attains majority on his
completing the age of 18 years but if before
the completion of that age he has a
guardian appointed by the Court, he attains
majority on completing the age of 21 years.
That Act applies to all persons including
Hindus but an exception is made with
respect to the capacity of any person to act
in the matter of marriage, dower, divorce
and adoption. Marriage and divorce have
already been dealth with so far as Hindus
are concerned and the definition of minor
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the Bill will ensure that the age of
majority is 18 for all practical purposes."

22. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act is
reproduced hereinbelow :-

"6. Natural guardians of a
Hindu minor.--The natural guardians of a
Hindu minor, in respect of the minor's
person as well as in respect of the minor's
property (excluding his or her undivided
interest in joint family property), are-

(a) in the case of a boy or an
unmarried girl--the father, and after him,
the mother: provided that the custody of a
minor who has not completed the age of
five years shall ordinarily be with the
mother;

(b) in case of an illegitimate boy
or an illegitimate unmarried girl--the
mother, and after her, the father;

(c) in the case of a married girl--
the husband:

Provided that no person shall be
entitled to act as the natural guardian of a
minor under the provisions of this section-

(a) if he has ceased to be a
Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and
finally renounced the world by becoming a
hermit (vanaprastha) or an ascetic (yati or
sanyasi).

Explanation.--In this section, the
expression "father" and "mother" do not
include a step-father and a step-mother."

23. From perusal of the same, it
appears that the aforesaid act will apply
only in respect of a minor. The age of
majority has been given in the Act is 18
years.

24. It is clear from perusal of the
same that petitioner no.2 has already
attained the age of majority as such no
benefit could be given to the respondent
no.1 in so far as Section 6(a) of the Act,
1956 is concerned.

25. Apart from the same, it is clear
from the record that the case filed, under
Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, by
the respondent no.2 has already been
decided finally on 17.1.2015. During the
pendency of the aforesaid case certain
interim orders were passed by which
directions were given by the court below to
permit the petitioner no.2 to meet with her
father from time to time. Since the
aforesaid orders were not complied with a
misc. case was filed by the respondent no.2
being Case No.13 of 2013 in order to
initiate the contempt proceedings. It is
settled law that any interim order passed
during the pendency of the case will
merged with the final judgment.

26. In the case of National Bal
Bhawan and another Vs. Union of India
and others reported in (2003) 9 SCC 671,
the Supreme Court held that :-

"4. It is no longer res integra that
once a writ petition is finally disposed of by
the High Court, any interim order passed
in pending writ petition merges with the
final order. If the respondents were
aggrieved by the interim order in terms of
which the writ petition was disposed of, it
was incumbent upon the respondents either
to have amended the memo of appeal by
challenging the final order passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court or ought to
4 All. Madhuri Shrivastav & Anr. Vs. Sri Praveen Kumar Shrivastav & Ors.
153
have preferred fresh letters patent appeal
against the final order passed by the Single
Judge."

27. In the case of State of West
Bengal and others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh
and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 250 it
was held by the Apex Court that :-

"The Interim Order doest not
decide the fate of the parties to the
litigation finally, it is always subject to and
merges with the final order passed in the
proceedings."

28. In the case of Prem Chandra
Agarwal and another Vs. Uttar Pradesh
Financial Corporation and others reported
in (2009) 11 SCC 479 it was held by the
Apex Court that :-

"Once a final order is passed, all
the earlier interim orders merge into the
final order, the interim orders cease to
exist."

29. In view of the settled proposition of
law though Misc. Case No.13 of 2013, which
was filed by the respondent no.1, is still
pending consideration before the court below
but the Court is of the opinion that in view of
the law laid down by the Supreme Court as
stated above no useful purpose would be
served to keep the aforesaid misc. case
pending. In view of the same, Case No.13 of
2013 filed by the respondent no.1 is hereby
dismissed. The court below is directed to pass
appropriate orders in the aforesaid case most
expeditiously and preferably within a period
of two weeks from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.

30. In so far as Review Petition No.8
of 2015 is concerned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Allahabad is directed to
decide the same most expeditiously and
positively within a period of four months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

31. During course of arguments, it is
stated by petitioner no.2/Ms. Vaishnavi that
wholly illegally even after the petitioner
no.2 attained the age of majority her father
is trying to harass her from time to time by
adopting all the modes including with the
help of Police. Since petitioner no.2 has
already attained the age of majority, all the
district authorities are restrained to interfere
with the peaceful living of the petitioner
no.2 in any manner whatsoever. In the
special facts and circumstances of the case,
District Magistrate, Prayagraj and S.S.P.,
Prayagraj is directed to see that respondent
no.1 or any other person will not harass her
in any manner whatsoever. In case of any
difficulty petitioners are free to approach
the S.S.P., Prayagraj and in case any such
complaint is made he is directed to look
into the matter immediately.

32. Accordingly, present petition is
disposed of.

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227
No. - 6794 of 2019

Petitioner :- Madhuri Shrivastav And
Another

Respondent :- Sri Praveen Kumar
Shrivastav And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- V.R. Tiwari

Counsel for Respondent :- Praveen
Kumar Srivastava ( In Person),Dhruv
Narayan Mishra
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Vide order dated 26.02.2020 Mr. D. N.
Mishra, learned counsel, was appointed
Amicus Curiae in the case to assist the
Court.

Vide order dated 12.10.2020 further
direction was given by this Court to make
payment of Rs.15,000/- to Mr. D. N.
Mishra, Amicus Curiae, for assisting the
Court within a period of two weeks.

When the matter was finally decided
by me on 03.03.2021 the assistance was
also given by Mr. D. N. Mishra, Amicus
Curiae, to resolve the dispute.

In this view of the matter, office is
directed to pay Rs.15,000/- in favour of Mr.
D. N. Mishra, Amicus Curiae, within a
period of three weeks from today.
----------
(2021)04ILR A154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 22 of 2021

Bhanu Pratap Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anand Prakash Paul, Sri Brij Bhushan
Paul

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Dying in Harness Rules,
1974 - Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
Act, 1956 - Section 7, Proviso of Section s
7 & 8 - Compassionate appointment -
Claim on the basis of Adoption - Adoption
deed declare the deceased-employee as
unmarried, though he was married - Lack
of
wife's
consent
-
Effect
-
Party
propounding an adoption by a Hindu male,
who has a living wife, has to adduce
evidence to prove that the same was done
with the consent of his wife - This can be
done
either
by
producing
document
evidencing her consent in writing or by
leading evidence to show that wife had
actively participated in the ceremonies of
adoption with an affirmative mindset to
support the action of the husband to take
a son or a daughter in adoption - Held,
the learned Single Judge was justified in
negativing the claim of the writ petitioner
(the
appellant)
for
compassionate
appointment on the basis of his alleged
adoption by the deceased employee. (Para
12 and 18)
B. Evidence law - Adoption deed - Validity
- Presumption - Rebuttable or not - Legal
principle laid down - Once a registered
deed of adoption is produced though there
arises a presumption that the adoption
has been made in compliance with the
provisions of the 1956 Act but that
presumption is rebuttable - Whether that
presumption has been rebutted depends
on the facts of each case borne out from
the evidence on record. (Para 15)
Special Appeal dismissed of. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Laxmibai Vs Bhagwantbuva, (2013) 4 SCC 97
2. Brajendra Singh Vs St.of M.P., (2008) 13 SCC
161
3. Ghisalal Vs Dhapubai, (2011) 2 SCC 298
4. Jai Singh Vs Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.&
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)