SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Rathna S vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2019

INTHECOURTOFTHEVIIIADDITIONALCITYCIVIL
ANDSESSIONSJUDGE(CCH-15)ATBENGALURU
Datedthisthe16thdayofDecember,2018.
PRESENT:
SriMALLANAGOUDA,B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIIIAdditionalCityCivilandSessionsJudge(CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINALSUITNo.5333/2018
PLAINTIFF:Smt.RathnaS.,
Agedabout32years,
W/o.MadanSingh,
ResidingatNo.1377,7th
MainRoad,Chikksandra,
Yashavanthapura,
Bengaluru,presently
residingatUganavadi
villagecross,NearCanara
Bank,Kundanahobli,
Devanahallitaluk,
BengaluruRuralDistrict.
(BySriChandrashekharK.,
Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS:1.TheStateofKarnataka,
representedbyitsChief
Secretary,VidhanaSoudha,
Bengaluru.
2.TheChairperson,
TheChildWelfare
Committee,Bengaluru
RuralDistrict,Officeat:
BesideKidvayHospital,
WelfareDepartment
Complex,Dr.H.Marigowda
Road,DharmaramCollege
Post,Bengaluru-560029.

Cont’d..
-2-O.S.No.5333/2018

3.TheChildDevelopmentand
ProtectionOfficer,Officeat
OldTalukaOfficeRoad,
DevanahalliTown,
BengaluruRuralDistrict.
(DefendantNo.1to3
BySriShanthaB.Mullur,
1stA.D.G.P,Advocate)
4.KaganoorMudukappa,
Agedabout42years,
S/o.Hanumanthappa,
ResidingatHouseNo.81,
KombaliHadagali,Ballary
District,andalsoresiding
atC/o.Smt.Gangamma,
No.137,AjjagowdanaPalya,
SasuveGhatta,
ChikkabanavaraPost,
Hesaraghattahobli,
BengaluruNorthTaluk
(Additional),Bengaluru-
560090.
5.Smt.Neelamma,
Agedabout38years,
W/o.KaganoorMudukappa,
ResidingatHouseNo.81,
KombaliHadagali,Ballary
District,andalsoresiding
atC/o.Smt.Gangamma,
No.137,AjjagowdanaPalya,
SasuveGhatta,
ChikkabanavaraPost,
Hesaraghattahobli,
BengaluruNorthTaluk
(Additional),Bengaluru-
560090.
(DefendantNo.4and5
BySriR.MohanKumar,
Advocate)

Cont’d..
-3-O.S.No.5333/2018

———————————————————————
DateofInstitutionoftheSuit:24-07-2018
NatureoftheSuit(Suiton:Declaration.
pronote,Suitfordeclaration
andpossession,Suitforinjun-
ctionetc,)
Dateofthecommencement:17-07-2019
ofrecordingoftheevidence
DateonwhichtheJudgment:16-12-2019
waspronounced
———————————————————————
Year/sMonth/sDay/s
———————————-
Totalduration:1year,4months,22days
———————————————————————

(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIIIAdditionalCityCivilandSessionsJudge,
An/-Bengaluru.

JUDGMENT

Thissuitisfiledbytheplaintiffseeking

declarationtocanceltheadoptiondeeddated5.6.2010

executedbytheplaintiffinfavourofdefendants4and5

inrespectofKumariThejaswini,daughteroflate

Ranganathacharandplaintiffandforthedeclarationto

restorethenaturallegalrightsoftheplaintiffover

KumariThejaswini.

Cont’d..

-4-O.S.No.5333/2018

2.Thebrieffactsoftheplaintiff’scaseareas

under-

KumariThejaswini,agedabout9years,whois

theseconddaughteroftheplaintiffandherlatefirst

husbandviz.,Ranganathachar.Plaintiffhasstruggled

alotwithherhusbandandherhusbandlate

Ranganathachar.LateRanganathacharandplaintiff

facedeconomicalproblems.Sincefrommarriagewith

lateRanganathachar,plaintiffhasfacedseveraltortures

fromherhusbandandafternegotiations,theydecided

togetdivorcebymutualconsent.However,beforethe

judgmentindivorcepetition,saidRanganathacharhas

died.Meanwhile,plaintiffhasgivenherconsentfor

givingherseconddaughterKumariThejaswiniin

adoptiontodefendants4and5throughregistered

adoptiondeeddated5.6.2010.Plaintiffhasgivenher

childinadoptionexpectingherbrightfutureandgood

development.But,defendants4and5havenottaken

careofthechildinagoodmanner.Theymentallyand

physicallyharassedher.Theyhavefailedtoprovideher

propereducationandbasicnecessities.On25.5.2018,

Cont’d..

-5-O.S.No.5333/2018

theydemandedtheplaintiffformoneyfortakingcareof

herdaughter’seducationandfuture,andonthatday

whenplaintiffrefusedtogivemoney,theyassaultedthe

childandafternegotiations,defendants4and5have

leftthechildintheplaintiff’shouseandwentout.

Further,KumariThejaswinihasrefusedtoreturnwith

defendants4and5.Infact,afterdeathofherfirst

husband,plaintiffhasenteredintoanothermarriage

withoneMadanSinghandsheisleadinggoodlife.

Therefore,defendants4and5aretryingtograbmoney

fromtheplaintiff.On28.5.2018,defendants4and5

calledtheplaintiffoverphoneanddemanded

Rs.2,00,000/-andthreatenedherofdireconsequences,

ifthesaidamountisnotpaidbyher.Therefore,as

defendants4and5haveviolatedthetermsand

conditionsoftheadoptiondeed,plaintiffisconstrained

tofilethepresentsuitfordeclaration.

3.Afterserviceofsummons,defendantshave

appearedthroughtheirCounselandfiledtheirwritten

statements.Defendants1to3havefiledtheirwritten

statementasfollows-

Cont’d..

-6-O.S.No.5333/2018

Suitisnotmaintainableeitherinlaworonfacts

andthesameisliabletobedismissed.Sinceplaintiff

hasnotissuednoticetodefendantNo.2,suitisnot

maintainable.On4.6.2018,SparshaChildLineMember

hasbroughtThejaswinitodefendantNo.2committee

alongwithheradoptedparentsviz.,Mudukappaand

Neelamma.Saidchildwasgiveninadoptionto

defendants4and5throughadoptiondeeddated

7.6.2010.Aftergivingthechildinadoption,plaintiff

hadnoconnectionwiththechild.Neelammausedto

visitthechildonvariousoccasion.Butnow,allofa

sudden,Neelammaandherhusbandhaveleftthechild

inthehouseoftheplaintiffandafteroneweek,they

demandedformoneyandatthattimeonly,thechild

Thejaswinirefusedtogowiththem.Plaintiffforcedher

togowithheradoptiveparents.Thoughadoptive

parentsarereadytotakebackthechild,thechildisnot

readytogowiththem.Whentheauthoritieshave

conductedinspection,theyfoundthatadoptivemother

ofthechildhasharassedherandtheyneverprovided

anyfacilitiestothechild.

Cont’d..

-7-O.S.No.5333/2018

4.Defendants4and5filedwrittenstatementas

under-

Suitoftheplaintiffismisconceived,baselessand

thesameisliabletobedismissed.Itistruethat

defendants4and5aretheadoptiveparentsofthechild

Thejaswini.Theyaretakingcareoftheadoptivechild

from8yearsandtheyareprovidinghereducationalso.

Thereisnocauseofactiontofilethesuitandthesuit

isbarredbylimitation.Whentheplaintiffwasnotina

positiontoprovidebasicamenitiestoherdaughterand

sheintendedtore-marry,shegavethechildto

defendants4and5inadoptionandtheyobtainedthe

childinadoptionoutofloveandaffectionbyfollowing

alltheprocedureunderlaw.Now,afterabout8years

fromadoption,plaintiffwantedtotakebackthechild.

But,whendefendants4and5refusedforthesame,

plaintifffiledacomplainttotheChildWelfare

Committeeandtookcustodyofthechildillegally.Now,

thechildisinthecustodyofseconddefendantandshe

isnotgoingtoschool.Avermensofpara3oftheplaint

aredenied.AvermentsofPara3oftheplaintthat

Cont’d..

-8-O.S.No.5333/2018

KumariThejaswiniistheseconddaughterofplaintiff

andRanganathachar,aredenied.But,avermentthat

plaintiffwasfacingfinancialproblemsfromthedayof

marriage,istrue.Furtheravermentsthatplaintiff

wantedtodivorceherhusbandandduringpendencyof

thedivorcepetition,hehasdied,arealsotrue.Itis

trueandcorrectthatdefendants4and5obtainedthe

childKumariThejaswiniinadoption.AvermentofPara

4oftheplaintthatplaintiffhasgiventhechildin

adoptionforgooddevelopmentofthechild,isalsotrue.

But,avermentsthatdefendants4and5arenottaking

careofthechild;theyviolatedtheconditionofthe

adoptiondeed-duetowhich,thechildsuffered

mentallyandphysically,areallfalse.Avermentsthat

on25.5.2018,defendants4and5visitedplaintiff’s

houseanddemandedformoneyforeducationofthe

child,areallfalse.AvermentofParas7and8ofthe

plaintareallfalseanddenied.

5.Onthebasisoftheabovefacts,thisCourthas

framedthefollowingIssues-

Cont’d..

-9-O.S.No.5333/2018

ISSUES

(1)Whetherplaintiffproves
defendantNos.4and5
havenottakencareof
childKumariTejaswinias
alleged?

(2)Whetherplaintiffproves
defendants4and5have
violatedtheadoptiondeed
termsoverthechild?

(3)Whetherplaintiffproves
defendantNos.4and5are
demandingmoneyfrom
herasalleged?

(4)Whethersuitoftheplaintiff
isnotmaintainable?

(5)Whethersuitisbarredby
lawoflimitation?

(6)Whetherplaintiffisentitled
forreliefofcancellationof
adoptiondeeddated
5.6.2010?

(7)Whetherplaintiffisentitled
forrestorationofher

Cont’d..

-10-O.S.No.5333/2018

naturallegalrightsas
sought?

(8)Whatdecreeororder?

8.Insupportofhercase,plaintiffexamined

herselfasP.W.1andgotmarkeddocumentsasper

Exs.P.1toP.4onherbehalf.

9.Ontheotherhand,defendantshavenot

producedanyevidenceontheirbehalf.

10.Heardarguments.

11.MyanswerstoaboveIssuesareasunder-

ISSUENo.1-Doesnotsurvivefor
consideration;

ISSUENo.2-Doesnotsurvivefor
consideration;

ISSUENo.3-Doesnotsurvivefor
consideration;

ISSUENo.4-Affirmative;

ISSUENo.5-Doesnotsurvivefor
consideration;

ISSUENo.6-Negative;

Cont’d..

-11-O.S.No.5333/2018

ISSUENo.7-Negative;

ISSUENo.8-Asperfinalorder,

forthefollowing-

REASONS

12.ISSUENOs.1TO3AND5:SinceIssueNos.4,

6and7areregardingmaintainabilityofthesuititself

andthesameareansweredagainsttheplaintiff,Issue

Nos.1to3and5doesnotsurviveforconsiderationand

hence,thesaidIssuesareansweredaccordingly.

13.ISSUENOs.4,6AND7:SincealltheseIssues

areinter-relatedwitheachother,theyarebeingtaken

uptogetherfordiscussionatastretchinordertoavoid

repetitivediscussionoffacts.

14.Thissuitisfiledbytheplaintiffseeking

cancellationoftheadoptiondeeddated5.6.2010.

Plaintiffhasgivenherdaughterviz.,KumariThejaswini

inadoptiontodefendantNos.4and5.Admittedly,the

childwhichwasgiveninadoptionwasgiventothe

custodyofdefendants4and5onthedateofadoption

deeditselfi.e.,7.6.2010.Admittedly,plaintiffisthe

Cont’d..

-12-O.S.No.5333/2018

naturalmotherofthechild.Herhusbandhasdiedand

afterdeathofherhusbandandbeforeherre-marriage,

shegavethechildinadoptiontodefendants4and5and

fromthedateofadoptiondeed,thechildwasinthe

custodyofdefendants4and5.Now,aspertheplaintiff

only,intheyear2018,asthedefendantNos.4and5

demandedforsomemoneyforeducationexpensesof

theadoptivechild,shefiledthepresentsuitfor

cancellationoftheadoptiondeed.But,asperSection

15oftheHinduAdoptionandSectionMaintenanceAct,once

theprocessofadoptionhasbeencompletedby

complyingwithalltheprocedure,thechildwillbecome

thesonordaughteroftheadoptiveparentsforall

purposesandforanyreasonsuchadoptionwhichhas

beencompletedlegallycannotbecancelledordeclared

asvoid.Therefore,hereinthiscase,whenadmittedly

thenaturaldaughteroftheplaintiffwasgivenin

adoptiontodefendants4and5throughadoptiondeed

dated7.6.2010aftercomplyingalltheprocedures-that

toobyexecutingregisteredadoptiondeed,thesame

cannotbecancelledforanyreason.Withregardto

allegationsmadebytheplaintiffaboutdefendants4and

Cont’d..

-13-O.S.No.5333/2018

5demandingmoneyforadoptionexpensesofthechild,

harassingthechildmentallyandphysically,thereare

otherrecoursesfortakingactionagainstdefendants4

and5.But,foranyreasontheadoptiononcecompleted

cannotbecancelledatall.Therefore,thissuitbeingthe

onefiledbytheplaintiffforcancellationoftheadoption,

isnotmaintainableandhence,IssueNos.4,6and7are

answeredasabove.

15.ISSUENo.8:Formyreasonsanddiscussion

ontheaboveIssues,Iproceedtopassthefollowing-

ORDER

Suitoftheplaintiffisdismissed.

Noorderastocost.

Drawdecreeaccordingly.

(DictatedtoJudgmentWriter,transcribedbyhim,
revisedbymeandaftercorrections,pronouncedinopen
Courtonthisthe16thdayofDecember,2019.)

(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIIIAdditionalCityCivilandSessionsJudge,
An/-Bengaluru.

Cont’d..

-14-O.S.No.5333/2018

ANNEXURE

1.WITNESSEXAMINEDFORTHEPLAINTIFF:

Examinedon:

P.W.1:Smt.RathnaSectionS.17-07-2019

2.DOCUMENTSMARKEDONBEHALFOFPLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1:Copyofadoptiondeed.

Ex.P.2:Copyofcomplaintfiledbyplaintiffto
defendantNo.3
Ex.P.3:Letterdated4.6.2018ofdefendantNo.2
committee.

Ex.P.4:ReportofdefendantNo.2dated20.7.2018.

3.WITNESS/ESEXAMINEDFORTHEDEFENDANTS:

Nil.

4.DOCUMENT/SMARKEDONBEHALFOFDEFENDANTS:

Nil.

(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIIIAdditionalCityCivilandSessionsJudge,
An/-Bengaluru.

Cont’d..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation