( 1 ) IN this Second Appeal admitted on 6-11-1996, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: (i) It ought to have been held that the adoption in law was invalid and illegal as the mandatory provisions of Sections 4, 5, 10 and 11 of the Hindu Adoption Act of 1956 have not been followed and complied with. (ii) Section 4 has an overriding effect of the Act and even the custom or usage which formed the part of the law immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have any effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act. Therefore, in this regard both the Courts have committed a grave error in law in giving effect to the custom or usage prevailing prior to the coming into force of the 1956 Act. (iii) In this case the provisions of Section 10 (iii) and (iv) have not at all been complied with. Admittedly, the Respondent was married at the time of adoption and he had also completed the age of 15 years at that time. (iv) Further provisions of Section 11 (iv) also have not been complied with for smt. Parvatibai, who is alleged to have taken the Respondent in adoption is less than 21 years older than the person to be adopted a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document