[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
766 views4 pages

Case Comment

The case involved a married couple who wanted to adopt a child from an orphanage. The petitioner wife, a famous musician, was informed she could not adopt without her husband's consent. She argued this discriminated against divorced women under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The court found Section 8 unconstitutional as it excluded divorced wives from independently adopting, contradicting another section giving women adoption rights without needing consent. The judgement struck down the discriminatory provision.

Uploaded by

Prabhnoor Guliani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
766 views4 pages

Case Comment

The case involved a married couple who wanted to adopt a child from an orphanage. The petitioner wife, a famous musician, was informed she could not adopt without her husband's consent. She argued this discriminated against divorced women under Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The court found Section 8 unconstitutional as it excluded divorced wives from independently adopting, contradicting another section giving women adoption rights without needing consent. The judgement struck down the discriminatory provision.

Uploaded by

Prabhnoor Guliani
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Family Law II

Case Comment: Mrs. Lalitha Ubhayakar vs Union of India, AIR


1991 Kant 186, 1990 (3) KarLJ 589

Submitted By

Prabhnoor Guliani

Division: E… PRN: 18010223095… Class 2018-23 of

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), PUNE

In

January, 2020

Under the Guidance of

Ms. Deepali Sahoo and Dr. Furkan Ahmed

62 A Block Phase, 47/48 Opposite Nokia Siemens Building, Industrial Area,


Sector 62, Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201301
CERTIFICATE
The project entitled “Case Comment: Mrs. Lalitha Ubhayakar vs Union of India AIR 1991, Kant
186, 1990(3) KarLJ 589”, submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA for Law of Family
Law II as a part of Internal Assessment is based on my original work carried out under the
guidance of Dr. Furkan Ahmed and Ms. Deepali Sahoo from December, 2019 to April, 2020.
The Research work has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the research paper has been duly
acknowledged.

I understand that I myself would be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if any,
detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

Date:
INDEX
Contents
Facts of the case...............................................................................................................................3
Issues................................................................................................................................................3
Judgement........................................................................................................................................3
Analysis...........................................................................................................................................3
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................3

Facts of the case


 In this case the petitioners are a married couple who want to adopt a child from the
Mathuchrya Foundling Home, a charity hospital. It is clear that the lady (Petitioner 1) is
married to her husband and wants to adopt a child. She was informed by one of the staff
members (Petitioner 2) that she cannot adopt a child from that facility unless her husband
gave consent. Petitioner 1 happens to be a very famous musician of national and
international repute who is already taking care of a child since 1988.
 Her grievance is regarding Section 8 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
which specifically deals with the rights given to a female major to adopt and this
excludes a divorced wife. Here the case is also in contradiction of Section 8 with Section
7 of the Act where arguments are made by the petitioners which deals with the rights of
female and male Hindu citizen’s rights respectively and how the woman is required to
give consent to her husband for adoption and thus if we observe both the sections the
woman or wife will not require the consent of anyone in matters of adoption of a child.
 According to Section 8 of the act
Issues
 In this case we see the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. Does the Section discriminate against divorced women in
matters of adoption?

Judgement

Analysis

Conclusion

You might also like