The Kerala High Court has recently affirmed a significant ruling made by a Single Judge, underscoring that the issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate hinges upon the provision of substantial and legally sound evidence pertaining to a valid legal adoption, along with the requisite supporting documents. This pivotal decision holds considerable ramifications, effectively denying the petitioner the opportunity to secure compassionate appointment rights in the unfortunate event of the demise of the purported adoptive parent.
A Division Bench, composed of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran, has reiterated and upheld the verdict rendered by the Single Judge. The Bench emphatically emphasizes that the conspicuous absence of concrete and credible evidence substantiating the claimed adoption justifiably forms the basis for denying the sought-after relief, thereby reaffirming the initial decision delivered by the Single Judge.
The petitioner, asserting her status as the adopted daughter of Gopalan, a part-time sweeper who has since passed away, had initiated legal proceedings with the aim of acquiring a Legal Heirship Certificate. This certificate would have granted her the invaluable right to compassionate appointment, a privilege often extended to legal heirs upon the demise of a government employee while in active service. Regrettably, the Single Judge ruled against her plea, citing the glaring omission of a bona fide adoption certificate or a declaration sanctioned by a competent civil court.
The legal representatives of the petitioner, Advocates S. Balachandran and V.R. Gopu, ardently contended on her behalf, asserting that her close and enduring association with the late Gopalan, which commenced from the tender age of four following the demise of both her biological parents, merited her entitlement to the sought-after status. The advocates further highlighted compelling evidence, including Gopalan’s nomination of the petitioner to receive the death cum retirement gratuity, wherein she was unequivocally acknowledged as his stepdaughter. Additionally, Gopalan had issued a formal consent letter to the Manager of the Indian Bank, explicitly designating the petitioner as his adopted daughter and nominating her as the rightful beneficiary of his bank account. Furthermore, a meticulously executed registered Will, meticulously crafted by Gopalan, unequivocally recognized the petitioner as his adopted daughter, thus bestowing upon her the unequivocal right to avail all service-related benefits following his demise.
The advocates eloquently presented the argument that the Single Judge had inadvertently overlooked these compelling and incontrovertible pieces of evidence while dismissing the petitioner’s fervent plea. Importantly, they underscored the fact that the legal provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, upon which the Single Judge’s decision rested, could not be effectively invoked in this case, as the petitioner’s Christian religious affiliation precluded the possibility of a Hindu adopting her as an adoptive parent.
Conversely, the Senior Government Pleader, Saigi Jacob Palatty, advanced a counterargument, emphasizing the paramount importance of having a legally recognized and valid document attesting to the factual occurrence of the adoption. Palatty persuasively contended that in the absence of such concrete evidence substantiating the adoption, the appointing authority could not be faulted for its decision to withhold the processing of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.
In a meticulous and thorough examination of the available documentation, the Bench diligently scrutinized the records to ascertain the veracity of the petitioner’s claim of adoption and the subsequent treatment she received from the late Gopalan as his adopted daughter. The Bench duly noted Gopalan’s act of nominating the petitioner as a ‘stepdaughter’ in connection with the impending receipt of the death cum retirement gratuity. Furthermore, a consent letter issued by Gopalan to the bank referred to the petitioner as his ‘foster daughter’.
However, the Bench expressed its concern over the insufficiency of these averments, asserting that they fall far below the rigorous legal requisites necessary to even remotely suggest the validity of the alleged adoption. It was therefore concluded that the Court could not find any justifiable grounds to censure the authorities responsible for withholding the issuance of a Legal Heirship Certificate in favor of the petitioner.
Furthermore, the Bench took into account the absence of tangible evidence indicating the ceremonial act of giving and receiving the child in adoption, a significant element required by the established norms for a valid adoption process. Additionally, the Court highlighted the conspicuous lack of an identifiable competent giver of the child in adoption, a critical aspect essential for substantiating a valid adoption under legal provisions.
In view of these comprehensive considerations, the Bench arrived at the unassailable decision to dismiss the petitioner’s appeal, thereby reaffirming the Single Judge’s ruling. This momentous legal verdict underscores the significance of adherence to stringent legal prerequisites for the recognition of adoption and its attendant benefits, thereby preserving the integrity of legal processes and safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.
Case Title: Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 (Ker) 408
Case Number: WA No. 1001 of 2023
By: Suman Roy, 4th year B.A.LLB. Student at University of Calcutta- LJD Law College
0 Comments