Back
2005 Supreme(Ker) 327
Judges : M.RAMACHANDRAN,K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Maxin George - Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation - Respondent
Case No : W.P.No.26644 of 2003
Decided On : 06/10/2005
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Dr. Sebastian Champappilly & Antony M. Ambat, Advocates. For the Respondent: Antony Dominic, E.K. Nandakumar, A.K. Jayasankar Nambiar, Priya Mahesh, Priya Manjooran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Christian Law, adoption must be evidenced by valid adoption according to recognized customs and formalities, as per Canon Law and the Synod of Diamper.
Headnote:
Adoption - Christian couple - Canon Law, Synod of Diamper - Canon 110, Decree XXI, Decree XXII
Fact of the Case:
A Christian couple sought legal recognition of the adoption of a child under a Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme after the death of the husband. The court was tasked with determining the legality of the adoption and its implications for the benefit claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of a valid adoption according to the recognized forms and formalities of adoption in the Christian community. The court dismissed the Writ Petition, ruling that the refusal of the respondent company to confer the benefit of the S.B.F. Scheme on the child as the legally adopted son of the deceased could not be faulted.
Issues: The key issue was whether the child had been legally adopted by the couple, and if so, whether he was entitled to the benefits under the S.B.F. Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Canon Law, specifically Canon 110, and the Decrees XXI and XXII of the Synod of Diamper to determine the legal recognition of adoption in the Christian community. It emphasized the need for evidence of a valid adoption according to recognized customs and formalities.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the refusal of the respondent company to confer the benefit of the S.B.F. Scheme on the child as the legally adopted son of the deceased.
K.P. Balachandran, J.
The question of legal importance that calls for to be answered in this Writ Petition is as to whether a Christian couple having no issues could legally make an adoption. The answer on the point is determine the fate of the petition, but provided, the further answer also is in the affirmative to the questions as to whether the first petitioner is son thus adopted by late M.V. George. The matter has come up for consideration in the circumstances stated hereunder.
2. Late M.V. George, husband of the second petitioner was a permanent employee under the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. Their marriage was in 1971. They are stated to be Christian belonging to Latin Catholic denomination. There was no issue born out of their wedlock despite lapse of six years of marriage. The second petitioner at the relevant time was working as a staff nurse at the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. A male child aged about 7 days found abandoned by its natural parents in the Institute of Maternity and Child Health, a separate wing of the Medical College on 8.10.1977 was handed over by the Superintendent of the Institute to the childless couple who brought him up as their own child. The child so brought up is the first petitioner. He is stated to have passed B.B. Examination in 1998. While so on 4.11.2002 M.V. George died in harness while working as a Senior Foreman at the depot of the respondent public sector company at Kottayam.
3. Under Ext.P9 Memorandum of Settlement, the respondent company had introduced a Superannuation Benefit Fund Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the S.B.F. Scheme). One of the options under the said scheme which is incorporated as Annexure I to Ext.P9 provided for giving employment for eligible suitable dependent son/daughter of workmen dying while in service. Dependent son/daughter is specified to include son/daughter legally adopted prior to the death of the workman.
4. Invoking the benefit that might be admissible under the said Scheme the second petitioner submitted application for employment for the first petitioner as adopted son of late M.V. George. That was rejected by the respondent vide Ext.P10 letter dated 12.5.2003. The petitioners have therefore approached this Court to have the benefit under the S.B.F. Scheme enforced to the benefit of the first petitioner.
5. The Single Judge before whom the matter came up for consideration has vide reference order dated 11.3.2004 placed the matter for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court. The learned Judge was of the view that there being no law passed by the Parliament permitting adoption among Christian community, when a Single Judge of this Court in Philips Alfred Malvin v. Gonsalvis (1999 (1) KLT 292) has taken the view that as Christian Law does not prohibit adoption, adoption effected could in appropriate cases be valid and legal, the matter requires an authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench.
6. The claim in the petition is that as per the instructions from the Parish Priest, permission was sought for from the then Bishop of Tellicherry for effecting adoption; that the Bishop blessed the child, the second petitioner and her husband and permitted adoption on 25.12.1977. On condition that the child be baptized and brought up as their natural born child. There is however no record to evidence any such permission sought for and obtained. Ext.P1 shows that as per order passed by the District Court in O.P.No.154 of 1978 on 29.7.1978, late M.V. George the husband of the second petitioner was appointed as guardian of the them minor first petitioner. Ext.P2 is the baptism certificate dated 12.2.1984 which shows that the first petitioner was baptized on 15.8.1978 at the parish church, showing the date of birth of the child as 25.12.1977. Ext.P3 is certificate to the effect that the first petitioner has received sacrament of confirmation on 7th May, 1988 at the Holy Family Church, Mudiyukara under the Arch Diocese of Changanasser
