Female Hindu adoption under the Hindu law statute does not require co-widow consent when Section 8 is applied.

Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the consent requirement in Section 7 for a male Hindu was held not to apply by implication to a female Hindu adopting under Section 8. The Act draws a deliberate distinction between male and female adoption capacity, and the omission of any consent condition in Section 8 was treated as intentional. The Court refused to import the proviso and explanation from Section 7 into Section 8, noting that this would amount to judicial legislation. Section 12's deeming fiction and Section 14's treatment of multiple wives supported the statutory scheme, and the senior widow's adoption was therefore valid without the junior widow's consent.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a senior widow can validly adopt a child without the consent of a junior co-widow, and whether the consent requirement in Section 7 can be read into Section 8.

Analysis: The Act is a codifying statute with overriding effect, and the scheme of Chapter II makes a deliberate distinction between the capacity of a male Hindu to adopt and that of a female Hindu to adopt. Section 7 expressly requires the consent of all living wives when a male Hindu adopts, but Section 8 contains no corresponding requirement for a female Hindu. The statutory fiction in Section 12 makes the adopted child the child of the adoptive mother for all purposes, and in the case of a married woman who adopts, the adoption operates as adoption also to her deceased husband. Section 14 further supports the statutory treatment of the adoptive mother in cases of multiple wives. The omission of any consent requirement from Section 8 was held to be deliberate, and the Court declined to read into that provision the proviso and explanation of Section 7, as that would amount to judicial legislation. The protection given by Section 12 against divesting vested property also answers the equitable concern of the junior widow's rights.

Conclusion: The senior widow's adoption was valid without the consent of the junior widow, and the challenge to the adoption failed.

---