Adoption Validity Determined by Execution Date, Not Registration: Nagpur High Court Ruling The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court recently overturned the disqualification of a Gondia resident from a compassionate appointment, ruling that an adoption deed becomes legally valid from the date it was executed, not from the date of its registration. The court emphasized that registration is not a mandatory requirement for the validity of an adoption agreement, clarifying that the document’s legal effect begins on the day it was signed. The case centered on a petitioner who applied for a compassionate appointment after the death of his adoptive father, a Zilla Parishad (ZP) teacher who died in service on July 8, 2015. The petitioner’s adoption deed, executed on October 24, 2003, was registered in 2015, after the adoptive father’s death. Authorities had initially included the petitioner in the waiting list of eligible candidates from 2016, but later removed his name, arguing that the adoption was invalid because the registration occurred after the adoptive father’s death. The division bench, comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande, rejected this reasoning. The court held that the adoption deed’s validity is determined by its execution date, not the registration date. It noted that the registration of the document in 2015 could not retroactively invalidate the adoption, which was lawful at the time of execution. The bench also highlighted that statutory provisions confirm a registered document operates from the date it would have taken effect even without registration. The court further acknowledged the petitioner’s long-standing inclusion in the waiting list, stating that this fact indicated prior acceptance of his eligibility by the authorities.#bombay_high_court #zilla_parishad #justices_mukulika_jawalkar #nagpur_high_court #justices_nandesh_deshpande
Bombay High Court Rules Spouse Need Not Justify Mental Cruelty Claims Nagpur: The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently ruled that a spouse seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty is not obligated to provide explanations for the alleged behavior of their partner. The court emphasized that such claims should be evaluated based on the cumulative impact of conduct rather than isolated incidents. This decision overturned a Family Court order that had denied a husband’s divorce petition, dissolving a marriage solemnized in March 2019. The case centered on a husband who filed a divorce petition through senior counsel Firdos Mirza and lawyer JB Gandhi, alleging persistent erratic behavior by his wife, including public altercations, threats, abusive communication, and emotional distress. The Family Court initially dismissed the petition, citing a lack of proof for the allegations or linking them to claims of mental disorder, a ground the husband later abandoned. The High Court’s division bench, comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande, rejected the Family Court’s approach, calling its reasoning “legally unsound” and “fallacious.” The bench clarified that mental cruelty and mental disorder are distinct legal grounds, stating that the withdrawal of the mental disorder claim did not invalidate the husband’s case of cruelty. A key factor in the case was a series of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the couple. The wife reportedly sent messages expressing regret for her “irrational and uncontrollable behavior,” which the court deemed evidentiary. The bench noted that an admission by the accused constitutes the best evidence in law.#bombay_high_court #nagpur_bench #firdos_mirza #jb_gandhi #justices_mukulika_jawalkar
