Can children under guardianship claim club membership as dependents? What Bombay High Court said

A child placed under legal guardianship is dependent upon the guardian for their care and upbringing just like a biological or an adopted child would be, the Bombay High Court recently held while deciding on a case concerning membership to a club. .The Court was dealing with a plea challenging the Bombay Presidency Golf Club’s decision to cancel the dependent membership of two major individuals under the care of their maternal aunt (petitioner/ guardian). A lower court had upheld the cancellation of membership of her wards who were neither her biological nor adopted children. This prompted the petitioner-aunt to approach the High Court in appeal. Justice Arif S Doctor found that the club’s rules did not expressly exclude wards from being treated as dependent children and found the cancellation of their membership to be unlawful.“The Club’s Bye-Laws do not contain any express provision that distinguishes between biological children and adopted children, nor do the Bye-Laws specifically exclude wards from being considered 'dependent children'.... the purpose of dependent membership is typically to extend privileges to those who are seemingly financially reliant on the primary member. Thus it would make no difference if such dependent children are natural-born descendants, or are adopted, or step-children, or ward," the Court said. .The Court added that the term dependent would generally include children under a guardianship (ward)."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 and/ or an adopted child would be. The position would be no different and would therefore also extend to all aspects of the child/ward's life, including recreational and social activities, facilities, and privileges," it said. .The Court further observed that in this case, the guardian had made no misrepresentation and had disclosed all relevant documents including the guardianship order, to the club.It held that guardian's use of the words ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ in the membership form cannot be viewed as a wilful misrepresentation made with the intention of deceiving the Club. .The petitioner became the legal guardian of her deceased sister’s two children following a court order in April 2017. Later that year, she applied for permanent membership at the Bombay Presidency Golf Club and disclosed the children’s guardianship status, attaching all relevant documents. Membership cards were issued to her and the children, but in 2018, the club revoked the children’s dependent membership, claiming it had “inadvertently admitted the wards and issued them ID cards” due to “missing the distinction between adoption and guardianship.”When the petitioner challenged the cancellation, the trial court dismissed her suit, holding that she had made a false declaration by referring to the children as her son and daughter. The trial court held that the wards were not eligible for dependent membership. However, the High Court found the trial court’s reasoning contradictory. It pointed out that in one part of the judgment, the trial court had clearly stated that there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner and that she had submitted all the necessary documents disclosing the children's status as wards. Yet, just a few paragraphs later, the trial court reversed this finding and held that she had made a false declaration. Calling these findings “contradictory and self-defeating,” the High Court described the lower court’s conclusions as “plainly perverse” and “manifestly illegal.”.The club argued that the wards had attained majority, thus ending their dependent status. The Court rejected this, citing the club’s own rules. The club’s rules specified that a son is eligible to continue as a dependent member until the age of 21 and a daughter until her marriage. It added that the club’s inconsistent practice further weakened its stance, highlighting cases where two other individuals were granted dependent membership despite not being biological or adopted children.The Court also quoted the club’s own witness admitting that "It is true that the word ‘child’ is not defined in the memorandum or articles of association. No distinction is made between biological child and ward.” "The club has acted in a manifestly illegal and perverse manner which would thus warrant interference by the Court," the Court concluded.Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court ruling and declared that the wards were entitled to enjoy all rights and privileges of membership of the club as petitioner's dependent children, subject to the club’s rules regarding age and marital status applicable to all dependent children.The judgment, however, was stayed for four weeks at the club’s request..Advocate Rohaan Cama along with advocate Kyrus Modi instructed by advocate Sapana Rachure appeared for the petitioner.Advocate Gaurav Sharma, along with advocate Pranav Chavan instructed by Mahesh Menon & Company appeared for the Bombay Presidency Golf Club.