Supreme Court Dismisses Habeas Plea Filed By Mother Alleging That Daughter-in-Law Was Not Treating Her Wheelchair-Bound Son

A Bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli rose to interact with the son and his spouse who were present in the Court.

As the CJI was informed that the son, who was on the wheel-chair had come to the Court, he asked the Counsel to let him inside the courtroom.

"Let the wheelchair inside the courtroom."

Justice Kohli asked others present in the Court to make way for him.

After, briefly, interacting with the couple, the Bench re-assembled.

The CJI said, "They are adults. They have been married for 18 years. They have 2 children. He had suffered a stroke. He has been treated."

Justice Kohli also stated, "He is being 'treated'. There is no Tantrik business. They are adults. They cannot be forced for treatment."

Justice Kohli told the petitioner, who had joined the hearing via Video Conferencing, that her daughter, who is in touch with her brother, can persuade him to get the treatment that the petitioner seeks to arrange for. But, the Judge made it abundantly clear, that the Court cannot issue direction in this regard.

"There cannot be a court direction to take him to X or Y doctor. But, your daughter can persuade his brother."

The petitioner's son got married on 13.04.2004. At present, he along with his spouse reside at NOIDA, while the petitioner stays at Faridabad. The son and his spouse have two grown-up children.

During the interaction the Bench was apprised that in April, 2020, the petitioner suffered a stroke and was hospitalized at Asian Institute of Medical Sciences, Faridabad for treatment. He is on wheel-chair and is recovering from the after effects of the stroke suffered by him and is currently getting physiotherapy. The wife stated that she has made all provisions for medication which were prescribed to her spouse.

The Bench noted that the relationship between the petitioner on one side and her son and daughter-in-law on the other were strained. However, the petitioner's daughter was in touch with her brother and her sister-in-law. She had visited the petitioner's son recently for Rakshabandhan.

Considering the submissions made by the couple, the Bench did not think it was fit to issue any further directions in the matter. While closing the habeas corpus petition, the Bench recorded -

"The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to make all arrangements for treatment of the son if he desires to get medical attention. The same may be communicated to the second respondent through the daughter who is in contact with them. In the event such a request is made it is entirely on the second respondent and her spouse to decide whether to accept such an offer."