Bombay High Court
TARAMATI @ TARABAI DURYODHAN GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 applies only to minors; therefore, a guardian cannot be appointed for an adult, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant, Taramati Duryodhan Gaikwad, filed an application under Section 47 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 seeking a guardianship certificate for her son, who is about 50 years old and suffers a 70% locomotor disability due to amputation of the right leg below the knee. The District Judge rejected the application on the ground that the Act permits the appointment of a guardian only for a minor, as per Section 7. The appellant appealed the decision, arguing that the severe disability warranted guardianship despite the son’s age. The High Court examined the statutory language of Section 7 and found no provision for guardianship of adults, even with disability. Consequently, the Court held that the lower court’s order was legally sound and dismissed the appeal without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 allows the appointment of a guardian for an adult who is severely disabled.
Legislation cited
- Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 — s. 7
Subjects
- guardianship
- disability
- minor
- Guardian and Wards Act
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45908
1 908.FA-3231-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3231 OF 2021
TARAMATI @ TARABAI DURYODHAN GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
…
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kadam Prasad B.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.K. Shirse
…
CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 1 st OCTOBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. The present appeal is filed under Section 47 of the
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 to challenge the order dated
09.04.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-10, Aurangabad in
M.A.R.J.I. No. 89 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the
present Appellant seeking a guardianship certificate in respect of her
major son came to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the son is
about 50 years of age. The application seeking a guardianship
certificate was filed on the ground that the son suffers from 70%
disability. A perusal of the disability certificate indicates that the son
suffers from locomotor disability on account of amputation of the
right leg below the knee. A perusal of Section 7 of the Guardian and
Wards Act, 1890 indicates that the appointment of a guardian under
the said provision can be made only in respect of a minor.
2 908.FA-3231-2021.doc
2. In view of the above, the application was rejected solely on
the ground that the son of the Appellant is not a minor. This Court
finds no legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned
District Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
ROHIT W. JOSHI
JUDGE
NAJEEB..
Checking your session…