Allowed

Laxmibai Tukaram Shelar and Sudhakar Tukaram Shelar v. ................................

Bombay HC13 Apr 2016GP/1/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this guardianship petition regarding a minor whose parents had died, the Court appointed the grandmothers and paternal uncles as guardians. It granted permission to invest the minor's pension and gratuity in fixed deposits and allowed interest for maintenance, while dispensing with statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners appointed guardians; consent granted to invest gratuity/pension in fixed deposits; interest for maintenance and fees permitted. Notice under Section 11, 1890, dispensed with.

Laxmibai Tukaram Shelar and Sudhakar Tukaram… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

909-GP1-13.DOC

¶2

Atul

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GUARDIANSHIP PETITION NO. 1 OF 2013

¶4

Chandrakant Dattaram Shelar
And

¶5

...Minor

¶6

Laxmibai Tukaram Shelar & Sudhakar Tukaram …Petitioners
Shelar

¶7

Ms. Anjana Modhare, i/b Siganporia & Dalvi, for the Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 13th April 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.This is a very old Guardianship Petition. It has been pending
since 2012. The minor is today 17 years old. He was 13 at the time
when the Petition was filed. His mother died in 2009. His father
died in 2012. He is their only child and therefore their only heir. At
the time of the Petition, the Petitioner, Laxmibai, the minor’s
grandmother was 81 years old. The 2nd Petitioner is the paternal
uncle of the minor, i.e., deceased’s father’s brother.

¶11

2.In view of this considerable delay, the Petition is accepted
and made returnable forthwith.

¶12

3.There is yet another brother named Parshuram and a married
sister named Anita Gaekwad.

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

909-GP1-13.DOC

¶15

4.The minor’s deceased father was employed with the Post
and Telegraph Department. At the time of his death, he occupied
staff quarters in Mumbai. After his parents’ death, the minor has
been staying with the Petitioners, i.e., his grandmother and paternal
uncle.

¶16

5.There is no doubt that the minor would be entitled to his
father’s pension and death/retirement gratuity and other benefits.
The Petitioners have, therefore, sought to be appointed guardians
of the minor, Chandrakant, with permission to invest the proceeds
of his father’s gratuity and pension funds receivable from the
Government of India and secure them in fixed deposits with any
Nationalised Bank till such time Chandrakant attains majority.

¶17

6.The second prayer in the alternative is that the 1st Petitioner,
on account of her advanced age, be not appointed guardian
(although she has acted as such) and that the appointment be made
in the name of the 2nd Petitioner, the paternal uncle of the minor. I
am not inclined to grant the alternate prayer.

¶18

7. The Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (c) and (d), which read follows:

¶19

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to appoint the Petitioners as the guardians of the minor Chandrakant Dattaram Shelar to look after his welfare and interest with permission to invest the proceeds of the gratuity and pension fund receivable from Government of India in secure Fixed Deposit Receipts in a nationalized bank in

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

909-GP1-13.DOC

¶22

the name of the minor Chandrakant Dattaram Shelar until he attains the age of majority;

¶23

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the minor to avail of the interest on the Fixed Deposit investments for his day to day maintenance and school fees;

¶24

(d) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispense with Notice under Section 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890;”

¶25

8. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

Laxmibai Tukaram Shelar and Sudhakar Tukaram Shelar v. ................................

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmibai Tukaram Shelar and Sudhakar Tukaram Shelar v. ................................

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narsingh M. Prabhu. Vs Chandrakant M. Prabhu and Anr. a.a.Prabhu and Ors.

Rahul Premraj Tupta and Anr. Vs Deepika Deepak Gupta (Caveatrix)

Rahul Premraj Tupta and Anr. Vs Pawan Deepak Gupta (Caveator)

Bal Asha Trust Vs Pizzuto Antonio Italian and Anr. (Pro. Adopters)

Bal Ash Trust Vs Gemignani Manuel and Anr.

Bal Asha Trust Vs Barzon Enrico, Italian and Anr. (Proposed Adopters) and Radhika (Minor)