MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Monday asked whether the state government has appointed and notified the designated authority under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to decide on pleas for appointment of guardians.
“There are many matters pending on this [guardianship] issue,” said Justices Sanjay Gangapurwala and Madhav Jamdar, while hearing a petition by a Mulund resident to appoint her legal guardian of her comatose husband and of his property in Tamil Nadu.
Since August 2019, the husband has been suffering from hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, a type of brain dysfunction that occurs when the brain does not receive enough oxygen or blood for a period of time. The wife has spent over Rs 20 lakh till date, and the monthly expenditure is Rs 2 lakh. Her petition said she borrowed from relatives and has reached a stage where she had to dispose of some properties for survival and for taking care of her husband. She said that there is a prospective buyer for the property, but as it is in her husband’s name she “is not able to proceed further with the transaction in view of the medical complications of her husband, who is comatose and is not able to understand or think or take any decision or sign any paper”.
The HC, at the outset, pointed out that there is a designated authority under the 2016 Act. “Why come to court when there is a special authority provided by the statute?..Whether the designated authority is appointed and notified by the state government?” asked Justice Gangapurwala. The wife’s advocate said in a similar case, the HC had appointed a legal guardian.
The Centre’s advocate Advait Sethna said in a fit case, the HC has appointed legal guardians. He said there is a remedy for appointment of a guardian under Section 14 of the Act. He added,“ Basically there is an alternative remedy in various statutes.” Justice Gangapurwala responded, “Exactly! There is no purpose of remedy in the statutes if all matters are entertained by the court.”
The woman’s advocate said her husband is bedridden and referred to the July 2021 report of a private hospital. While keeping the issue of an alternative remedy under the Act open, the judges directed the dean of JJ Hospital to take appropriate steps and submit a report on the husband’s condition within two weeks.
