Allowed

Smt. Sandhya Arun Mohite v. Ananya Roopesh Nawarkhele (Minor)

Bombay HC5 Jul 2016GP/27/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Bombay allowed a guardianship petition filed by the grandmother of a minor orphan. The Court dispensed with Section 11 notice, appointed the petitioner as guardian of the person and property, and directed investment of the minor's share in UK assets via RBI bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petition made absolute: Section 11 notice dispensed; petitioner appointed guardian of person and property; minor's share to be deposited and invested in bonds/fixed deposits.

Smt. Sandhya Arun Mohite Vs Ananya Roopesh… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

4-GP-27-2015.DOC

¶2

JSN

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GUARDIANSHIP PETITION NO.27 OF 2015

¶4

Smt. Sandhya Arun Mohite…Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Sunil V. Chaubal, for the Petitioner.

¶6

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

¶7

PC:-

¶8

1. Heard Mr. Chaubal for the Petitioner.

¶9

2.This Petition under the Guardian and Wards Act VII of 1890.
The Petitioner is 61 years old. She is a housewife. She is the mother
of one Kavita Roopesh Nawarkhele. On 24th February 2002, Kavita
married one Rupesh Nawarkhele. They had a minor female child,
Ananya, born on 1st January 2005. She is today just over 11 years
old.

¶10

3.Rupesh and Kavita were permanent residents of
Southampton in the U.K. They visited India in August 2014. They
both died in a tragic car accident near Chandigarh on 23rd August
2014. Roopesh was older than Kavita. Though they were both killed
in the same accident, given the age difference, there is a

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

5 July 2016

¶13

4-GP-27-2015.DOC

¶14

presumption that he died first and that she died shortly after. On
that presumption, Roopesh’s heirs were Kavita, Ananya and
Roopesh’s mother; and Kavita’s heirs are her mother (the
Petitioner), Roopesh’s mother, and Ananya, the minor. In any event,
Ananya is entitled to succeed to a share in her parents’ estate (along
with their other heirs).

¶15

4.Roopesh’s parents are alive but are old and are not physically
able to look after the minor. Roopesh left some property in UK,
including bank accounts.

¶16

5.The minor has stayed with the Petitioner since the time of the
accident. The Petitioner says that they have deep bond. The
Petitioner, therefore, seeks to be appointed as a guardian of the
property and person of the minor without security or remuneration.
It is stated that the interest of the Petitioner is not adverse to that of
the minor.

¶17

6.Having considered the material and the documents as also the
nature of relief sought, I am inclined to grant the reliefs in the
Petition noting that the Petitioner has been careful to mention that
on realisation of proceeds from sale of certain assets listed in Exhibit
“E” to the Petition, the minor’s share in these sale proceeds will be
invested till she attains majority.

¶18

7.The Petition is made, therefore, absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a) to (f) which read as follows:

¶19

Page 2 of 4
5 July 2016

¶20

4-GP-27-2015.DOC

¶21

(a)That Notice under Section 11 of the Guardian and
Wards Act, VIII 1890, may be dispensed with;

¶22

(b)That the Petitioner as the grandmother of the
minor, Ms. Ananya Roopesh Nawarkhele, be appointed
as Guardian of the person and property of the minor
(without security and without remuneration);

¶23

(c)That the Petitioner may be permitted to take
such steps in respect of the properties shown in Exhibit
“E” to give effect for transmission of the assets coming
to the share of the minor in her names and to execute
such documents, deeds, affidavits and any such
document as may be necessary for such transmission;

¶24

(d)That the Petitioner may be permitted to realize
the realizable assets and to deposit the amount
realised from the said assets of said Roopesh
Nawarkhele in the process of the administration of the
estate as shown in Exhibit “E” within four weeks from
the date of the realisation of the said amount with the
Accounts Officer of this Hon’ble Court;

¶25

(e)that the Accounts Officer of this Hon’ble Court
be directed to invest the said amount in Reserve Bank
of India Bonds or in fixed deposits of any Nationalised
Banks initially for the period of three years and to
renew the same for time to time on the date of its
maturity till the time the minor attains the age of
majority or till any further order is passed by this
Hon’ble Court in that behalf;

¶26

(f)That the Petitioner be permitted to withdraw the
interest on the said Reserve Bank of India Bonds or the
Fixed Deposit every quarterly for the day to day
expenses, maintenance, education and upkeepment of

¶27

Page 3 of 4
5 July 2016

¶28

4-GP-27-2015.DOC

¶29

the said minors, without passing any security and
account in respect of the same:

¶30

8.All expenses incurred by the Petitioner for the minor’s
education, maintenance, expenses, etc., are to be separately
accounted. The Petitioner agrees and undertakes to file annual
accounts on or before the first of December each year till the minor
attains majority.

¶31

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶32

Page 4 of 4
5 July 2016

Smt. Sandhya Arun Mohite v. Ananya Roopesh Nawarkhele (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sandhya Arun Mohite v. Ananya Roopesh Nawarkhele (Minor)

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

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

Girish Arjun Kanse Vs Riddhi Girsh Kanse (Monor)

Jelam Shitesh Jobanputra Vs Miss Deetya (Minor)

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