#Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act

MP High Court upholds Rs. 2000/month interim maintenance for a daughter-in-law under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, ruling that a private Panchayat settlement-without court pleadings-cannot override statutory maintenance rights. The judgment reinforces that financial settlements outside judicial proceedings lack legal weight in maintenance disputes.

A daughter’s claim for marriage expenses is not extinguished by a prior settlement for maintenance unless the settlement explicitly includes such expenses. The Kerala High Court remanded the case to determine whether the settlement’s 'full and final' language encompassed marriage costs, reinforcing that financial obligations under Hindu personal law must be clearly articulated to be waived.

Bombay HC rules that adoption under Hindu law takes effect from the execution date of the adoption deed, not its registration date. The court held that delayed registration cannot disqualify an adoptive heir from compassionate appointment, reinforcing the legal validity of adoption from the date of execution.

Karnataka High Court rules that third parties cannot challenge the validity of a Hindu adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, reinforcing that locus standi is restricted to parties with a direct legal interest. The court upheld a permanent injunction in favor of the adoptive family, prioritizing possession and revenue records over absolute title proof, setting a precedent for property disputes involving adoption.

Madras High Court rules that adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is valid if statutory conditions are met, even without the traditional Dattahomam ritual. The judgment also clarifies that children of void marriages are Class-I heirs, reinforcing familial rights based on public documents like voter IDs.

Calcutta High Court clarifies that eligibility under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act is determined at the time of filing the adoption application, not the date of the court order. The ruling protects petitioners from procedural delays and reinforces child welfare as the primary consideration in adoption cases.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that Section 125 CrPC does not extend maintenance to major children unless disabled, clarifying scope of summary relief versus civil remedies.