Disposed

Girish Arjun Kanse v. Riddhi Girsh Kanse (Monor)

Bombay HC5 Jul 2016GP/2/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court held that the petitioner, the natural father, is the legal guardian of his minor daughter without needing a court order. The court directed the Income Tax Department to process the family pension transfer. The petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Income Tax Department directed to process the family pension transfer to the minor showing the petitioner as father and natural guardian.

Girish Arjun Kanse Vs Riddhi Girsh Kanse (Monor) — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1-GP-2-2016.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GUARDIANSHIP PETITION NO.2 OF 2016

¶4

Girish Arjun Kanse…Petitioner

¶5

Mr. D.C. Pathak, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kuklarni, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax present.

¶6

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:5th July 2016

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1.Mr. Ajay Kulkarni, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(H.Q.), is personally present in Court pursuant to the order of 8th
June 2016.

¶9

2.The matter requires some explanation. The Petitioner, Girish
Kanse, was married to one Anagha. They had a daughter, Riddhi, as
yet a minor. Anagha died on 18th May 2013. During her lifetime,
Anagha worked with the Income Tax Department, Mumbai. As
such, she was entitled to certain benefits including a family pension.

¶10

3.It seems that on 28th November 2014, approximately a little
more than a year after Anagha passed away, Girish remarried.

¶11

Page 1 of 2
5 July 2016

¶12

1-GP-2-2016.DOC

¶13

4.I can understand that on his remarriage, the Petitioner is not
eligible to continue to receive the family pension that was due to
Anagha. However, there should be no difficulty at all as regards
Riddhi, and her entitlement to her mother’s pension.

¶14

5.Girish Kanse has had to file this Petition only because of a
letter dated 30th January 2015 from Mr. Ajay Kulkarni, in which Mr.
Kulkarni requires the Petitioner to produce a “legal guardianship by
the Court”. There can be no such requirement. In law, the
Petitioner is the father and natural guardian of the minor, Riddhi.
This requires no certification from a Court. Since Mr. Kulkarni
agrees that this was an error, and I accept that explanation, a formal
order on the Petition is not necessary. Mr. Kanse’s application to the
Income Tax for transfer of Anagha Kanse’s family pension to the
name of the minor, Riddhi Girish Kanse, will be processed by the
Income Tax Department showing the Petitioner as her father and
natural guardian. Mr. Kulkarni says that this process will be
completed on or before 5th August 2016.

¶15

6.The Petition is disposed of in these terms and with no order
as to costs.

¶16

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

¶17

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶18

Page 2 of 2
5 July 2016

Girish Arjun Kanse v. Riddhi Girsh Kanse (Monor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Arjun Kanse v. Riddhi Girsh Kanse (Monor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmaladevi Ramkhilawan Kori Vs Ramkhilawan Rambaksh Kore (Deceased)

Vidya Ganesh Kadam Vs Sambhaji Vithoba Kadam (Deceased)

Kantilal Khimji Alias Kantilal Khimji Teookaya and Anr. Vs Pravinkumar Khimji Alias Pravinkumar Khimji Tejookaya

Jelam Shitesh Jobanputra Vs Miss Deetya (Minor)

Meena Avinash Dali Vs Ganpat Sakharam Pawar and Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (Mhada Unit) (Resp.)

Boudhayan Mukherjee Vs Shayandeep Chaudhury (Minor)