“A plain reading of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 would make it clear that compliance of the conditions in Chapter I is mandatory for an adoption to be treated as valid. The consent of the wife and proof of the actual ceremony of adoption are two important conditions. M. Vanaja has failed to prove that she has been adopted. Though the facts are similar, we are unable to apply the law laid down in L. Debi Prasad, (1970) 1 SCC 677. The case pertains to adoption that took place in the year 1892 and we are concerned with an adoption that has taken place after The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 came into force. Ghisalal, (2011) 2 SCC 298 held that the consent of the wife is mandatory for proving adoption.”
– Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao, M. Vanaja v. M. Sarla Devi, [Civil Appeal No. 8814 of 2010].