Dismissed¶37

Manoj Sunil Ripote v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai through Commissioner

Bombay HC27 Feb 2026WP/1811/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; legal heir; adopted son; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956; Section 10; Section 10(iv); adoption of person above fifteen years; custom or usage exception; notarised Adoption Deed 27.02.2023; adoptive age 33 years; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai; Group of Tuberculosis Hospital Sewree; Ward Boy since 1998; Room Attendant; Consent Affidavit of widow Rekha; impugned letter 30.08.2023; Affidavit in Reply 31.07.2024; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, a person who has completed fifteen years cannot be taken in adoption unless a custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it. ¶32

Manoj Sunil Ripote vs the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai through Commissioner — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's adoption by Adoption Deed dated 27.02.2023, executed when he was 33 years old, is valid under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, absent any custom or usage permitting adoption of a person above fifteen years. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

Under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, a person who has completed fifteen years cannot be taken in adoption unless a custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner, adopted by Adoption Deed on 27.02.2023 at age 33, did not establish any custom or usage applicable to said Pranil and said Rekha permitting his adoption; his adoption is therefore invalid under the Act.

¶32

Key takeaways

As the Petitioner's adoption is not valid under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, he could not be granted compassionate appointment; the only legal heir of the said Pranil would be his wife, the said Rekha.ratio¶33
The prayer for directing Respondent No. 3 to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground as legal heir of the said Pranil as Room Attendant of Group of Tuberculosis Hospital, Sewree cannot be granted.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2024, Manoj Sunil Ripote v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.; Coram R. I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, JJ.; decided 27 February 2026 (order signed by Advait M. Sethna, J.). The Petitioner sought a direction to Respondent No. 3 (Group of Tuberculosis Hospital, Sewree) to appoint him on compassionate grounds as Room Attendant as legal heir of Late Pranil Gopinath Chandramore (a Ward Boy at the Tuberculosis Hospital since 1998), relying on a notarised adoption deed dated 27.02.2023 executed when the Petitioner was 33 years old and on the Consent Affidavit of the widow Rekha. Held: Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 prohibits adoption of a person who has completed fifteen years unless a custom or usage applicable to the parties permits it; the Petitioner established no such custom or usage, so his adoption was invalid; the only legal heir of the deceased is his wife Rekha; the main prayer and the alternate prayer could not be granted. Writ Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

Digitally signed by ARUNA ARUNA SANDEEP SANDEEP TALWALKAR TALWALKAR Date: 2026.03.07 11:01:10 +0530

¶2

4.WP1811.2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 2024

¶5

Manoj Sunil Ripote. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Rushikesh Kale, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms Rupali Adhate i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Ms. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No. 4.

¶9

Mr. Taya Patil, Administrative Officer (I/C) Group of T.B. Hospitals present.

¶10

CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED : 27^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 3 to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground as legal heir of Late Shri Pranil Gopinath Chandramore as a Room Attendant at Group of Tuberculosis Hospital, Sewree. Further direction is sought against Respondent No. 3 to consider the Application dated 10.05.2023 filed by the Petitioner for the appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground as he is the only legal heir of Late Shri Pranil Gopinath Chandramore as Room Attendant with Respondent No. 3 - Hospital.

Talwalkar

4.WP1811.2024.doc

The Petitioner states that he had been adopted by Late Pranil Gopinath Chandramore (for short “said Pranil”) and his wife Rekha Pranil Chandramore (for short “said Rekha) by executing notarised documents with the parents of the Petitioner namely, Sunil Rajaram Ripote and Shobhana Sunil Ripote on 27^th February, 2023 for taking care of said Pranil and said Rekha in their old age. The said Pranil was diagnosed with cancer on 28^th February, 2023 and thereafter died due to cancer on 14^th April, 2023.

¶17

The Petitioner further states that the only legal heirs and representatives of the said Pranil are his wife said Rekha and the Petitioner. The Petitioner not having any employment made an application attested with Affidavit on oath alongwith necessary document as well as Consent Affidavit of the said Rekha on 10^th May, 2023 to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the Petitioner on the compassionate grounds in place of the employment of said Pranil as a Room Attendant with the Respondent No. 3 – Hospital.

¶18

The Petitioner had received the impugned letter dated 30.08.2023 denying the compassionate appointment and being aggrieved thereof, the present Petition was filed.

¶19

¶20

Talwalkar

¶21

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed their Affidavit in Reply dated 31^st July, 2024 wherein in paragraph – 6, it is stated that the said Pranil was working as a Ward Boy at Tuberculosis Hospital since 1998 and that the said Hospital is attached with the Department of Public Health of Respondent No. 1 – Corporation. As per service record of the said Pranil maintained by the Respondent No. 1 – Corporation, said Rekha (wife of the said Pranil) is the only legal heir. Further, it is stated in paragraph 7 that the Petitioner is wrongly claiming that he is the only legal heir of the said Pranil. It is stated in paragraph – 8 that the Petitioner in his application for Compensatory Appointment as the legal heir of the said Pranil on 10^th May, 2023 to the Respondent No. 1 – Corporation had relied upon the Death Certificate of the said Pranil dated 14^th April, 2023 and Notarised Adoption Deed dated 27^th February, 2023. The alleged Adoption Deed revealed that at the time of its execution, the Petitioner’s age was 33 years. Reliance has been placed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and in particular Section 10 which provides that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled and one of these conditions in (iv) being “he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption”.

Talwalkar

4.WP1811.2024.doc

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have contended that the Petitioner’s age being 33 years at the time of adoption, would be disqualified from being adopted by the said Pranil and said Rekha.

¶26

Mr. Rushikesh Kale, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed reliance on the Consent Affidavit of the said Rekha consenting to the Petitioner being granted compassionate appointment. He has submitted that in view of the Consent Affidavit of the said Rekha who is admittedly the legal heir of the said Pranil, the Petitioner should be considered for compassionate appointment.

¶27

Ms. Rupali Adhate, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has placed reliance on the said Affidavit in Reply and the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, in particular the aforementioned Section 10 of the Act. This provides for a person who may be adopted and the condition being that the adopted person has not completed the age of 15 years unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties to the contrary. She has submitted that in view of the Petitioner having exceeded that age and there being no such custom or usage to the contrary, the Petitioner could not have been adopted by the said Pranil and said Rekha. She has accordingly submitted that the rejection of the Petitioner’s Petition for compassionate appointment is

Talwalkar

4.WP1811.2024.doc

justified.

Having considered the submissions as well as the admitted fact of the Petitioner having been adopted by execution of the Adoption Deed on 27.02.2023 when the Petitioner’s age was 33 years, the applicable provision viz. Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 prohibits such adoption. The only exception for adoption of a person beyond the age of fifteen years is where there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits the person who has completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption. In the present case, the Petitioner has not been able to establish any such custom or usage applicable to the said Pranil and said Rekha for adoption of the Petitioner.

¶33

We find much merit in the contention on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that given that the Petitioner’s adoption not being valid under the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956, the Petitioner could not be granted compassionate appointment as the only legal heir would be the said Rekha (wife of the said Pranil). Thus, the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition for directing the Respondent No. 3 to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground as legal heir of the said Pranil as Room Attendant of Group of Tuberculosis Hospital, Sewree cannot be granted. The alternate prayer also cannot be granted in the circumstances of the present case.

Talwalkar

4.WP1811.2024.doc