:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION GUARDIANSHIP GUARDIANSHIP GUARDIANSHIP PETITION NO. 108 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 108 OF 2006 PETITION NO. 108 OF 2006 Smt. Indubai Tatyappa Kamble. ...Petitioner. Mr. H.N. Thakore i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Petitioner. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 15TH 15TH 15TH OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. OCTOBER 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard Mr. Thakore, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner. This Court has passed order on 14th March 2007. The Petitioner is a paternal grand mother of the minor whose parents have expired. The only reason why the Court did not pass final order on the Petition is that the death certificate of the minor’s mother which has been issued on 18th September 2005 under Form No.6 referable to Rule 8 of the relevant enactment, requiring maintenance of birth and death, records for the village, is signed in vernacular. 2. The death certificate produced by the learned Advocate is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. 3. The Court was of the view that the Office should issue notice to the concerned authority in Karnataka State :2: and verify from the said authority as to whether the said certificate has been issued by it or not. 4. Mr. Thakore states that the Petitioner has rendered all assistance and provided the address of the said authority to the Registry. The Registry despatched the packet of the notice at the said address but it is returned with the remark "left/not known, returned to sender". 5. In these circumstances, and when the Petition is pending for last two years, Mr. Thakore states that this Court should pass appropriate orders as there is complete compliance with the requirement stipulated in law. He submits that the minor’s father has admittedly expired. The mother has also expired and none has come forward to dispute the genuineness and authenticity of the certificate dated 18th November 2005. 6. Reading of the orders passed by this Court, it does not appear that the Court was in doubt about the death of the mother. All that was in issue was whether this certificate is issued by the Competent Authority and whether the deceased was at the relevant time residing within the jurisdiction of the said authority. After perusal of the certificate, it does not appear to me that the stamp of the authority which is in vernacular is enough to doubt the genuineness of the certificate :3: inasmuch as below the said stamp the authority has been specified and to this authority, the notice has been issued. Merely because the notice could not be served or that the authority has shifted its office cannot be a ground to deny the relief. In the Petition it has been stated that there is nobody in the family to look after the minor. The Petitioner is the paternal grand mother with whom the minor is residing. She has been maintaining the said minor and looking after him. There is nobody else in the family of the father. There is nobody in the family of the late/deceased mother of the minor. In such circumstances, in the peculiar facts of this case, I am of the view that the Petition deserves to be made absolute, more so, when the grandmother is also aged 58 years. The Petition is, therefore, made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (b) to (e). (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)