'Adopted Son-In-Law' Status Unknown To Law: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment Plea
The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption creates a legally recognised relationship only between an adoptive parent and an adopted son or daughter, and that there is no legally recognised category of an “adopted son-in-law”.A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit thus dismissed a special appeal filed by a man seeking...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption creates a legally recognised relationship only between an adoptive parent and an adopted son or daughter, and that there is no legally recognised category of an “adopted son-in-law”.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit thus dismissed a special appeal filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of an adoption deed executed by his father-in-law, observing that an adoption deed purporting to create the status of an “adopted son-in-law” seeks to establish a status “completely unknown to law”.
"Correspondingly, the only relationship capable of being brought into existence through adoption is that of an adoptive parent and adopted son or daughter. There is no legally recognized category of an “adopted son-in-law” or of the converse status of an “adoptive father-in-law” which can possibly be established through the institution of adoption".
The Court was hearing an appeal against the January 2025 judgment of a Single Judge, which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of an adoption deed.
Per the facts, the appellant is married to the elder daughter of Mohan Lal, who was employed as Jamadar with Nagar Palika Mandal of Sheoganj. During his lifetime, Mohan Lal executed an adoption deed, basically adopting his son-in-law, the appellant, as his son in the presence of a witness on November 1, 2012. Mohan Lal passed away on November 3, 2012, and the adoption deed was registered on December 17, 2012, before the Sub-Registrar.
On the basis of the adoption deed, the appellant submitted a representation before the Nagar Palika seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.
Initially, the Nagar Palika raised an objection to the said adoption deed on the ground that Mohan Lal's signature marked on the deed did not match his official signature. Thereafter, Shanti Devi, widow of Mohan Lal, submitted a representation requesting the grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant.
However, the Nagar Palika rejected the application on the ground that the applicant failed to produce the required legal documents. The Appellant thereafter filed a petition before the Single Judge, who dismissed the petition.
The counsel for the appellant claimed that he was entitled to compassionate appointment as the adopted son of Mohan Lal, particularly in view of the adoption deed and consent letters submitted by other family members. It was argued that the Nagar Palika erred in rejecting the application on the ground that required legal documents were not submitted, whereas the appellant had submitted a valid adoption deed.
It was further stated that Mohan Lal remained hospitalized for more than 16 months prior to his demise and that he died shortly after the adoption deed was executed and therefore it could not be registered during his lifetime. The counsel for the appellant claimed that the Single Judge failed to consider the statutory presumption attached to a registered adoption deed under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which grants legitimacy to the child born from voidable and void marriages.
The counsel for the respondents claimed that even if it is presumed that the appellant was 26 years old when he was adopted by Mohan Lal, the adoption itself would be invalid under Section 10 of the HAMA, which states that a person above the age of 15 years cannot be adopted. The counsel for the respondent further argued that the adoption deed was created after Mohan Lal's death to secure a compassionate appointment in the place of the deceased and that such forged documents defeat the objective of providing a compassionate appointment.
The court, examining the contents of the adoption deed, noted that the deed does not profess to adopt the appellant as a son, but rather discloses an unambiguous intention of late Mohan Lal and his wife to adopt the appellant as their (adopted son-in-law). The court noted that the construction of such a deed presents a fundamental conceptual difficulty. The bench noted
"We fail to comprehend the legitimacy of such adoption by which an existing/actual/real son-in-law is sought to be declared an adopted son-in-law".
Emphasizing that the only relationship capable of being brought into existence through adoption is that of parents and adopted child. There is no legally recognized category of adopted son-in-law.
Thus, the bench held
"Even if this Court were to construe the deed generously and assume, for the benefit of appellant, that the expression God Jamai was merely an improper choice of words and that the true intention was indeed to adopt appellant as a son, it would still be impossible to reconcile the legal consequences arising therefrom with the governing statutory framework".
The bench further noted that the companionate appointment claimed was unsustainable. The bench held that even if the deed is construed liberally, it still falls within the statutory prohibitions under Section 10 of HAMA, which governs who can be adopted.
The bench further noted that the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, do not recognize a son-in-law, whether real or adopted, as a dependent eligible for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 666/2025
For Appellant: Advocate Girish Kumar Sankhla.
For Respondent: Advocate Ayush Gehlot for Additional Advocate General Rajesh Panwar