BRAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

BRAJENDRA SINGH versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.

There is a conceptual and contextual difference between a divorced woman and one who is leading life like a divorced woman. Since there was no dissolution of marriage, Mishri Bai was not entitled to the declaration sought for, and the adoption was void.

Parties
Appellant: Brajendra Singh; Respondents: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 January 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court, Second Appeal No. 482 of 1996
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Capacity of Female Hindu to Adopt, Land Ceiling and Surplus Determination
Hindu Law Family Law Property Law Adoption Capacity of Female Hindu to Adopt Land Ceiling and Surplus Determination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brajendra Singh

Appellant

State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Madhya Pradesh High Court, Second Appeal No. 482 of 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Hindu wife living separately from her husband is entitled to adopt a son and seek declaration under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956
  2. 2 Whether such adoption impacts determination of surplus land under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960

Ratio Decidendi

There is a conceptual and contextual difference between a divorced woman and one who is leading life like a divorced woman. Since there was no dissolution of marriage, Mishri Bai was not entitled to the declaration sought for, and the adoption was void.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant permitted to be in possession of land for a period of six months; Government may be moved for an appropriate decision in the matter.
  • No opinion expressed on acceptability of appellant's request for allotment of land from surplus.