The Bombay High Court has ruled that children placed under legal guardianship must be treated as dependent children for all practical purposes, including eligibility for club memberships, akin to biological or adopted children.
Justice Arif S Doctor delivered the verdict while hearing a plea challenging the Bombay Presidency Golf Club’s (BPGC) decision to cancel the dependent membership of two individuals under the guardianship of their maternal aunt.
The Club had revoked their membership on the grounds that they were neither the biological nor adopted children of the petitioner, but merely her wards.
The petitioner became the legal guardian of her deceased sister’s two children by a court order in April 2017 and had later applied for permanent membership at BPGC, duly disclosing their guardianship status and submitting all relevant documents. Membership was initially granted to her and the children. However, in 2018, the Club rescinded the children’s dependent membership, stating their inclusion was a mistake, having misunderstood the legal distinction between adoption and guardianship.
When the trial court upheld the club’s decision—claiming the petitioner misrepresented facts by referring to the children as her ‘son’ and ‘daughter’—she approached the High Court.
Justice Doctor held that the Club's bye-laws made no distinction between biological, adopted, or ward children under guardianship. “A ward would also, by virtue of a guardianship order, be dependent upon the guardian for their care and upbringing, in the same manner in which a biological child or an adopted child would be,” the Court said, adding that dependent membership is meant to extend privileges to those financially reliant on the primary member, regardless of biological or legal status.
The Court found that the petitioner had made no misrepresentation and had been transparent about the children's guardianship. It noted the trial court had contradicted itself—acknowledging there was no misrepresentation, yet later finding the opposite—calling its reasoning “plainly perverse” and “manifestly illegal.”
Rejecting the Club’s argument that the wards had become majors and thus ineligible for dependent status, the Court pointed to BPGC’s own rules, which allow dependent membership for sons until 21 and for daughters until marriage.
It also noted inconsistencies in the Club’s practices, citing other instances where dependent membership had been granted to individuals who were neither biological nor adopted children of members.
Quoting a club witness who admitted there was no definition of "child" in the Club's governing documents and no distinction made between a biological child and a ward, the Court found the Club’s actions unjustified.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and declared the two wards entitled to enjoy all rights and privileges of dependent membership, subject to age and marital status norms applicable to all dependents. However, it granted a four-week stay on the order at the Club's request.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Rohaan Cama and Kyrus Modi, instructed by advocate Sapana Rachure. The Golf Club was represented by advocates Gaurav Sharma and Pranav Chavan, instructed by Mahesh Menon & Company.
