The central legal point established is that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, only a Hindu can be adopted by a Hindu, and the adoption of a non-Hindu has no legal sanctity.

1. The petitioner Kumar Sursen, who was then a minor, has petitioned this Court for grant of caste certificate and residential certificate on basis that he was the adopted son of Kamal Prasad Roy and was residing with him at village-Madarpur in the district of Vaishali. This has been refused by the district authorities on the ground that the petitioner was in fact a Muslim boy named Sahadat and is the natural son of Majid Mian and Ayesha Khatoon of villageGadaisarai in the district of Vaishali. Petitioner asserts that he was taken in adoption by Kamal Prasad Roy. The said Kamal Prasad Roy does not dispute this fact and asserts by his actions and otherwise that he had in fact adopted the said Muslim boy at a very tender age and had been keeping him as his own son. He, accordingly, wanted this boy to have his caste and his residential certificates.

2. Counter-affidavit has been filed and rejoinder thereto has been filed wherein these basic facts are not in dispute. With the consent of parties, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

3. Under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Sec. 6 thereof permits adoption by a Hindu of a Hindu child alone. Law does not recognize an adoption by a Hindu of any person other than a Hindu. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not contest this petition in law. If that be so, the adoption, as sought to be done in respect of the petitioner by Kamal Prasad Roy, has no legal sanctity though it may be morally binding between the parties. If that be so then unfortunately the boy cannot get the caste certificate of his alleged adoptive parents. Similarly, he cannot get a residential certificate and both cannot be granted in his name showing him son of Kamal Prasad Roy. I may, however, observe that changing name is permissible, and if the name of the boy has been changed and his natural parents have no objection, the name can always continue and so far as residence is concerned, it can be shown as residence of Kamal Prasad Roy but not as son of Kamal Prasad Roy but son of the, natural parents.

4. I, therefore, find no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed as such giving liberty to the petitioner or his alleged adoptive parents to approach for grant of requisite certificate accordingly.