Introduction
The Hon'ble Madras High Court, in a recent judgment passed in the case of S. Sasikala v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., permitted the appointment of the wife of a person in a comatose state as the guardian for his person and manager of his property pursuant to a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Facts in a Nutshell
A Writ Petition was filed by the wife of a person who was in a vegetative state, praying for her appointment as the guardian of her husband's property. It was her contention that her husband was in a vegetative state and had earlier been admitted to a hospital for about two months, with the treatment bill running into several lakhs of rupees. Thereafter, he was taken home and cared for by the petitioner with the assistance of critical care nurses and a caretaker.
The Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court and was dismissed, taking the view that the relief sought by the petitioner could not be granted under a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the jurisdictional civil court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
Issue for consideration.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had to decide whether the Single Judge was right in holding that the Writ Petition of such a nature was not maintainable.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dated 20th February 2019, made in W.P.(C) No. 37278 of 2018 (Shobha Balakrishnan and Another v. State of Kerala). In this case, the Kerala High Court dealt with a petition concerning an individual in a comatose state where the petitioner sought to be appointed as a guardian of such a person. The Kerala High Court had laid down certain guidelines to be followed by petitioners seeking such appointments as guardians for persons in a comatose state.
The Division Bench thereafter directed the original petitioner to implead her children, born through her husband, who then confirmed that there was no dispute that the husband of the petitioner was in fact in a vegetative state and that the family was without any means. Thereafter the Division Bench was satisfied that unless the property mentioned in the petition was allowed to be dealt with, great hardship would be caused to them.
The Hon'ble Court held that taking care of a person lying in a comatose condition is not easy and requires funds and paramedical staff will have to be hired. The court held that the property belonging to the husband of the petitioner had to be put to use for his benefit. The court held that the state is not taking care of the said person, and driving the petitioner to move the civil court would not be proper.
Having regard to this position, the Hon'ble Madras High Court allowed the Petition subject to certain conditions, which were to be adhered to by the Petitioner as the guardian of the person as well as the properties of her husband. The Hon'ble Court imposed specific conditions regarding the realisation of the assets of the Petitioner’s husband and stipulated the use of the funds exclusively for his benefit for the remainder of his life.1
By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar