In the present case there is no question of adoptive father giving any payment or reward to the plaintiff as a consideration for the adoption. As already noticed, there was no question of any payment or agreement to make payment by plaintiff to his would be adoptive father. Regarding giving of reward by plaintiff or agreement to give any reward to his would be adoptive father for consideration of adoption, that question would arise only if the plaintiff had any right in the properties. Prior to adoption plaintiff had no such right and, therefore, the question of his giving anything to defendant No. 1 does not arise. On facts earlier noticed, the plaintiff was being fostered by adoptive father and his wife for five years prior to adoption. The wife of adoptive father had transferred various properties in favour of the plaintiff about five years earlier to adoption. At the same time she had also settled certain properties in favour of the girl with whom the plaintiff was to marry and in fact married. By agreement Exhibit B-16, the appellant/plaintiff agreed not to claim any interest in some of the properties of his adoptive father. It did not cover all the properties of defendant No. 1. Such an agreement is not prohibited by Section 17. Under the circumstances of the case, there was no question of any trafficking in children. Section 17 does not prohibit every kind of agreement between a major adopts and the would be adoptive father. Exhibit B-16 does not suffer from the vice of Section 17 of the Act.
Print Page
Supreme Court of India
Jupudi Venkata Vijaya Bhaskar vs Jupudi Kesava Rao (D) And Ors. on 19 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 3314, 2003 (6) ALD 118 SC
