“Driving Her To Civil Court Is Not Proper”: Madras HC Appoints Wife As Guardian Of Comatose Husband, Allows Her Sell To Properties For Medical Expenses

Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji thus set aside the order of a single judge who had opined that the relief could not be granted under Article 226 and gave liberty to the woman to approach the jurisdictional civil court. The division bench, however, observed that driving the woman, who was already burdened with taking care of her comatose husband, was not proper.

The court also noted that taking care of a person in a comatose condition was not easy and required funds. Thus, the court opined that the property, which was in the name of the husband should be put to better use by allowing the wife to deal with them.

“Taking care of a person lying in Comatose condition is not that easy. It requires funds. Paramedical staff will have to be hired. The petition mentioned property belongs to Thiru.Sivakumar. It has necessarily to be put to use for his benefit. The State is not taking care of Thiru.Sivakumar. The appellant is shouldering the entire burden. Driving the appellant to move the civil Court, in our view, is not proper. When based on admitted and proved facts relief can be granted, there is no purpose in non-suiting the appellant on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable,” the court observed.

The court was informed that the husband was kept at home and taken care of by the wife through critical care nurses and a caretaker. The wife approached the court for appointing her as the husband's guardian and allowing her to deal with the properties in his name.

When the matter was taken up, the bench directed impleading the children of the couple. Both the children, who have attained majority, informed the court that they had no objection and informed the court that they were bereft of any means to meet the medical expenses.

The court noted that both the Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court have previously dealt with similar issues allowing the petitions. The court thus remarked that the single judge was not right in holding the petition to be not maintainable.

The court thus allowed the pled to appoint the wife as the guardian. The court also permitted the wife to deal with the properties on behalf of the husband and assuming the value of the property to be Rs. 1 crore, directed Rs 50 Lakh to be deposited in a nationalized bank in the name of the husband. The court permitted the wife to withdraw the interest accrued on the deposit once in three months. The court also directed the wife to file an affidavit indicating compliance with the direction to create the deposit.

The court further directed that the fixed deposit should remain till the life of the husband, after which it will go in three equal shares to his legal heirs – the wife and two children. The court remarked that the conditions were imposed for the benefit of the family and to ensure that the survival needs of the family are met.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.N.Vijayaraj

Counsel for Respondent: Ms.M.Sneha, Standing Counsel, Mr.K.Tippusultan, Government Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 222

Case Title: S Sasikala v The State of Tamil Nadu

Case No: W.A.No.1538 of 2024