Hindu Father Can Adopt Own Biological Son Born Out of Wedlock, Says Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Hindu man is not prohibited under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, from adopting his own biological son born out of wedlock merely because he is the child's biological father.

Court, however, stressed that such an adoption must otherwise satisfy the statutory requirements applicable on the date it was made.

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar dismissed a second appeal arising from a decades-old property dispute over agricultural land. Court upheld concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court that Ram Kesh had been validly adopted by Badlu, who was also his biological father.

What was the dispute over the adoption?

Ram Kesh claimed that although his mother was married to Budh Ram, Badlu was his biological father. He said Badlu subsequently adopted him on November 8, 1970. Ram Kesh relied on evidence of the adoption ceremony as well as entries in the family register, school certificate and Ganna Pass Book showing him as Badlu's son or adopted son.

The dispute arose after Badlu executed sale deeds in June 1973 in favour of the defendants in respect of the agricultural land. Ram Kesh alleged that the defendants had taken Badlu away on the pretext of getting him medically treated and had thereafter fraudulently procured the sale deeds. He filed a suit seeking their cancellation.

The defendants denied the adoption and maintained that Badlu had voluntarily executed the registered sale deed for consideration. Their principal argument was that Badlu, being Ram Kesh's biological father, could not legally adopt him.

The trial court rejected this argument, found the adoption proved and cancelled the sale deed. The District Judge, Basti, affirmed the findings.

Why did the high court uphold the biological father's adoption?

The high court examined the law as it stood in 1970 and found no express statutory prohibition against a Hindu male adopting his biological but illegitimate son.

“The Act contains no such prohibition,” court said, adding that Section 10, which specifies who can be adopted, does not exclude an illegitimate child merely because of his illegitimacy. “Illegitimacy is conspicuously absent from the statutory disqualifications,” it observed.

Court distinguished between the capacity to give a child in adoption and the capacity of a person to take a child in adoption. It held that there was no provision in the 1956 Act disqualifying a Hindu male from adopting a child who was his biological but illegitimate son.

Court also noted that the evidence of witnesses had established the ceremony of giving and taking. Under Section 11(vi), what was important was an actual act of giving and taking with the intention of transferring the child to the adoptive family.

“The fact that the person who took the plaintiff in adoption was his biological father does not render that ceremony legally meaningless,” court said.

Court acknowledged that the District Judge had incorrectly relied on Section 9(4), but held that this error did not affect the ultimate finding because the adoption had otherwise been proved.

What did the court say about the registered sale deed?

The high court also rejected the defendants' argument that registration itself established the validity of the sale transaction.

It said registration is relevant evidence but “does not, by itself, conclude the question” where execution is challenged on grounds such as fraud, lack of free and conscious consent or undue influence.

Court noted inconsistencies in the defendants' evidence about the consideration. One witness spoke of Rs 18,000, then said Rs 6,000 had been paid before the Sub-Registrar; another was not a witness to the payment; while a third spoke of Badlu receiving Rs 3,000. The high court said the first appellate court was entitled to consider these inconsistencies along with the surrounding circumstances.

It held that the concurrent finding that the sale deed had been fraudulently obtained was a finding of fact and disclosed no perversity or substantial legal error warranting interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The second appeal was accordingly dismissed. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were affirmed and the appellants were directed to bear the costs.

Case Title: Budhi Ram and Others v. Ram Kesh

Judgment date: September 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar