In a case that pitched legal guardianship against rigid club protocol, the Bombay High Court has clarified something that should never have needed saying: a child is a child, even if born not of your body but of a court’s decree.
At the heart of the legal tangle was a prestigious club—the Bombay Presidency Golf Club—which had, in 2018, revoked the dependent memberships of two young adults raised by their maternal aunt after the passing of their mother. Despite the aunt having secured formal guardianship through a court order in 2017 and having submitted all required documents—including the guardianship order itself—the club claimed it had “mistakenly” issued the ID cards.
Why? Because the children weren’t biologically hers. Nor adopted. Just “wards.”
The trial court took the club’s side, accusing the guardian of playing semantic games by referring to her niece and nephew as her ‘daughter’ and ‘son.’ But the High Court saw through the red tape and called the lower court’s logic for what it was: “contradictory and self-defeating,” and ultimately “manifestly illegal.”
Justice Arif S Doctor, presiding over the case, made it clear that the club’s own bye-laws didn’t distinguish between biological, adopted, or ward children when it came to dependent membership. “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,” he stated.
More damningly, the court noted the club’s own inconsistent practices. Evidence showed that other non-biological, non-adopted dependents had also been issued memberships in the past, blowing holes in the club’s claim of a rigid rulebook.
Even one of the club’s own witnesses admitted under oath that the term “child” wasn’t clearly defined anywhere in their documents—and no distinction had ever been formally established between a ward and a biological child.
As for the club’s argument that the children had since turned 18 and were no longer “dependents,” the High Court pointed again to the club’s own rules: dependent sons can remain members until 21, daughters until marriage.
In the end, the High Court didn’t just restore the children’s rights—it delivered a firm reminder that legal guardianship is not a second-class form of parenthood. The children, now legally recognized dependents under the club’s own framework, are entitled to all rights and privileges as long as they meet the age and marital status conditions applied to all dependents.
The decision is on hold for four weeks, pending the club’s response. But unless they can rewrite their rules—and their conscience—this looks like game, set, and match in favor of guardians who dare to care.
