ASHOK JAIKUMAR AIYER ALIAS ASHOK JAYAKUMAR AIYERversusLALITHA JAIKUMAR AIYER ALIAS LALITA JAYAKUMAR AIYER

                                                    23. TP 2787-25.doc


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

                  TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2025

Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer             ...Petitioner

Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer          ...Deceased

Mr. Tejas V. Dhotre for the Petitioner.

                       CORAM     :        ABHAY AHUJA, J.
                       DATE      :        28th AUGUST, 2026
ORAL ORDER:

1.       This matter was heard on 28 th July, 2026 on the objection raised

by the Registry on 13th August, 2025, that before granting the Letters of

Administration without Will to the Petitioner in respect of the Deceased

viz. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, the Petitioner would have to prove the fact

of adoption as per law.

2.       Mr. Dhotre, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner had

submitted that pursuant to the desire expressed by the adoptive parents

of the Petitioner viz. Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt.

Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, wife of Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer,

who had no natural son or daughter of their own and wanted to adopt

a son viz. the Petitioner Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer, who at that time was

aged about 2 years and 8 months (Date of Birth: 7 th January, 1986)

being the biological son of Shri N. J. Gopalan and Smt. G. Jayanathi.


Nikita Gadgil                                                   1/7
                                                  23. TP 2787-25.doc


Accordingly, Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer was on 5 th September, 1988 given

in the presence of relatives and well-wishers to Shri Jayakumar

Subramanayam Aiyer and his wife Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, who

had taken the Petitioner in adoption as their son on the said day.

3.       Mr. Dhotre submits that the Adoption Deed dated 5 th September,

1988, at pages 20 to 22 of the Petition clearly establishes that the

adoption ceremony of the Petitioner from Mr. N. J. Gopalan and his

wife Smt. G. Jayanathi to Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and his

wife Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer took place on 5 th September, 1988 not

only as per the customs and traditions by performing of Dattahoma

ceremony but also in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6, 7

and 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (the “said

Act”).

4.       Mr. Dhotre has also drawn this Court’s attention to an affidavit

filed by one Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer dated 7 th October, 2025 and in

particular in paragraph 4 of the said affidavit Mr. Ravi Krishnamoorthy

Iyer has reiterated that the Petitioner is the adopted son of the

deceased Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer alias Lalita Jayakumar Aiyer and the

deceased Jaykumar Subramanayam Aiyer, who expired on 13 th January,

1996 and that in this regard, an unregistered Adoption Deed dated 5 th


Nikita Gadgil                                                 2/7
                                                      23. TP 2787-25.doc


September, 1988 adopting Ashok Jaykumar Aiyer alias Ashok

Jayakumar Aiyer was executed. It has also been stated in the said

affidavit that all the government and other records show that Lalitha

Jaikumar        Aiyer    alias   Lalita   Jayakumar   Aiyer    and      Jaykumar

Subramanayam Aiyer, as parents of Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok

Jayakumar Aiyer.

5.       Mr. Dhotre has also taken this Court to Sections 6, 7 and 11 of

the said Act and submits that the said provisions have been complied

with and that this Court may, therefore, hold that the adoption of the

Petitioner by Shri Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and his wife Smt.

Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer is proved.

6.       In support, Mr. Dhotre, relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla Devi (dead)1.

7.       I have heard the learned Counsel and considered the

submissions.

8.       Section 6 of the said Act clearly provides for the requisites of a

valid adoption as under :-


      “6. Requisites of a valid adoption-

      No adoption shall be valid unless—(i)the person adopting has
      the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption;
1    (2020) 5 SCC 307.


Nikita Gadgil                                                     3/7
                                                    23. TP 2787-25.doc


      (ii)the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so;
      (iii)the person adopted is capable of being taken in adoption;
      and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other
      conditions mentioned in this Chapter.”
9.       Accordingly, under Section 7 of the said Act any male Hindu,

who is of sound mind and not a minor, has the capacity to take a son or

daughter in adoption, of course with the consent of his wife.

10.      Under Section 11 of the said Act, there are other conditions for a

valid adoption.

11.      Section 11 of the said Act is also quoted as under:-

                “11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.—

       In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied
       with:—
       (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother
       by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son,
       son's son or son's son's son (whether by legitimate blood
       relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption;
       (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or
       mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a
       Hindu daughter or son's daughter (whether by legitimate
       blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of
       adoption;
       (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted
       is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-one years
       older than the person to be adopted;
       (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be
       adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-one
       years older than the person to be adopted;
       (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two
       or more persons;


Nikita Gadgil                                                   4/7
                                                   23. TP 2787-25.doc


       (vi)the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken
       in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under
       their authority with intent to transfer the child from the
       family of its birth or in the case of an abandoned child or a
       child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family
       where it has been brought up to the family of its adoption:
       Provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be
       essential to the validity of adoption.”
12.      As can be seen, one of the other conditions, which is relevant in

the facts of this case is that the adoptive father or mother by whom the

adoption is made must not have a Hindu son, son's son or son's son's

son, living at the time of adoption and the other condition applicable

to the facts of this case is that the child to be adopted must be actually

given and taken in adoption by the parents, although the performance

of the Dattahoma is not essential for the validity of an adoption.

13.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Vanaja Vs. M. Sarla

Devi (dead) (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dhotre, clearly provides that

Sections 7 and 11 of the said Act are mandatory for an adoption to be

treated as valid adoption and that the two conditions that must be

complied with are the consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopts a

child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking in

adoption.

14.      In the facts of this case as can be seen from the Adoption Deed

annexed at pages 20 to 22 of the Petition that both Shri Jayakumar

Nikita Gadgil                                                  5/7
                                                     23. TP 2787-25.doc


Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, respectively

aged 40 and 38 years then, had the capacity to adopt Ashok Jayakumar

Aiyer, who was then minor aged 2 years and 8 months (his date of birth

being 7th January, 1986), which is also confirmed by the affidavit dated

7th October, 2025 of            Ravi Krishnamoorthy Iyer, who knew Shri

Jayakumar Subramanayam Aiyer and Smt. Lalitha Jaikumar Aiyer, that

the Petitioner was put in the lap of two of them by Shri N. J. Gopalan

and Smt. G. Jayanathi on 5th September, 1988 at their house in

Bangalore in the presence of relatives and well wishers assembled for

the purpose of performing Dattahoma as per Hindu Brahmin Iyer

customs and sweetmeats and prasad had been distributed to the

assembled relatives and well wishers and Brahmins and feasted

according to their family customs on the said occasion and that the two

adoptive parents had taken the Petitioner in adoption as their son on

that day, declaring that the child shall enjoy and inherit all right, title,

interest and privileges as their son in accordance with the personal law

applicable to them.

15.      It is also observed from the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Krishnamoorthy

Iyer that all the government and other records show that Lalitha

Jaikumar        Aiyer   alias   Lalita   Jayakumar   Aiyer    and      Jaykumar



Nikita Gadgil                                                    6/7
                                                                       23. TP 2787-25.doc


                    Subramanayam Aiyer are the parents of Ashok Jaikumar Aiyer alias

                    Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer.

                    16.      Therefore, in my view, the conditions of Sections 7 and 11 of the

                    said Act having been met, the adoption of the Petitioner of Mr. Ashok

                    Jaikumar Aiyer alias Ashok Jayakumar Aiyer is proved. The objection

                    raised by the Registry stands complied with.

                    17.      The Registry to proceed with the issuance of the Letters of

                    Administration without Will to the Petitioner, subject to any other

                    objection(s) or requisition(s) or caveat(s).




                                                                        (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)


       Digitally
       signed by
       NIKITA
NIKITA YOGESH
YOGESH GADGIL
GADGIL Date:
       2026.09.01
       19:57:03
       +0530




                    Nikita Gadgil                                                  7/7