JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, INDIA VOL. 21, 2022 that by swearing to following words, i.e., “take therefore the fulfilment of any religious duties; I take thee to continue the line of ancestors,” one can perform temporal duties.9 Therefore, it was obvious that in early times, adoption was a means to achieve religious benefits. The same principle was recognised by the Hon’ble Justice, G. Lowndes, while mentioning that under the brahminical influence, the act of adoption of son has been given a religious significance for the “spiritual welfare of the souls of his immediate ancestors with an extensive class of subsidiary sons being admitted to the family, all of whom could perform the necessary ceremonies, though only some of them were allowed full rights of inheritance.”10 The doctrine of religious efficacy of son-ship was stressed by the Privy Council in Amarendra v. Sanatan11 that helps a father to adopt when his only son is a patita or disqualified person according to Smritis. It is also clear from the Hindu texts when it is stated that a daughter could also provide for the continuance of the line through her son, and the religious requirements of the deceased can then be met.12 In Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shriniwas Pandit,13 the Privy Council observed that among the Hindus, the ceremony of adoption is held to be necessary not only for the continuation of the lineage of childless father, but as part of the religious means whereby a son can be provided, who will make those oblations and religious sacrifices, which would permit the soul of the deceased passing from ‘Hades’ (hell) into ‘Paradise’.14 Through the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, an attempt was made to cater to the Hindu practices relating to adoptions to other communities. The customary practices of adoption were not found to be concentrating on the welfare of the adopted child as it was treated as secondary consideration and performed majorly for religious and spiritual purposes. In many cases, it had been seen that the fate and position of the adopted son remained miserable and subjected to a lot of suffering if a male child is born subsequently to such adoption to the adopted parents. Such anomalous features of the customary practices of adoption were then done away with the introduction of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, a piece of the legislative form of the customary law in progressive character on matter of adoption. The striking features of the Act are that in adoption, both son and daughter and adopted parents are placed on equal footing and subject to the same legal regulations and obligations.15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 74 P.V. Kane, History of Dharamshastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law India), Vol. 1 (1968) Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar and Another v. Sanatan Singh, (1933) 35 BOMLR 859 (1933) 60 I. A. 242 Chanbasappa v. Madiwalappa, (1937) I.L.R. Bom. 642 (1915) 17 BOMLR 527 Gopalchandra Sarkar, Sastri’s Hindu Law, S.C. Sarkar & Sons Ltd. 653 (1940) P.V. Kane, History of Dharamshastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law India), Vol. 1 (1968)