Telangana High Court
Smt. Madhavi Godishala vs The Union Of India on 2 December, 2024
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 3524 OF 2024
O R D E R:
The case of petitioners is that marriage of petitioner No.1 with Ravindar Godishala was solemnized in November 2009; in 2010, they gave birth to petitioner No.2. In 2015, Ravindar Godishala, a Software Engineer, relocated to the USA to advance his career. Later, petitioner No.1 along with her son joined him there. On 02-06-2023, at about 1:30 a.m., it was discovered that Ravindar Godishala had fallen unconscious in the bathroom of their residence in the USA. He was immediately admitted to HCA FL Lake Monroe Hospital, Sanford, Florida, USA. After his initial treatment, he was discharged and subsequently airlifted to Hyderabad, India, where he was admitted to Continental Hospitals on 25-04-2023. He was discharged on 14-05-2023 and moved to a rented house near the hospital for continued care.
During medical reviews at Continental Hospital, doctors opined that Ravindar Godishala was in a vegetative or minimally aware state, rendering him incapable of making decisions. Consequently, it was advised that petitioner No.1, as 2 his guardian, would make decisions on his behalf. Doctors recommended lifelong supportive treatments. To accommodate his condition, a room in the house has been converted into a ward resembling an ICU setup. Nursing staff have been arranged for his care, and petitioner No.1 personally manages his medical reviews and treatments. Ravindar Godishala remains unable to communicate and breathes with the assistance of a tracheotomy tube. Petitioners have elaborated the financial strain caused by the situation. Treatment and nursing expenses have been borne through family savings and loans from relatives and friends. Additionally, periodic hospital reviews and checkups require substantial financial resources. It is also stated that petitioner No.1 has to take care of the academics of petitioner No.2, who is reportedly in a state of depression due to his father's condition. The family's financial burden is compounded by day-to-day medical expenses. Ravindar Godishala's parents, who are elderly and engaged in agriculture in their village, are unable to provide financial support. Petitioner No.1 has already incurred significant debts and is now in a state of despair and mental anguish due to her husband's vegetative condition.
3
Petitioner further states that during his employment in the USA, Ravindar Godishala purchased a house with a loan from a US bank, for which monthly EMIs of $3,332 were being paid. He also purchased a car in his name. Following his illness, petitioners are unable to pay EMIs since August 2023, leading to a notice from the US bank regarding loan default. Petitioner No.1 wishes to sell the house and car in the USA to settle the outstanding loan and meet medical and family expenses but is unable to do so as the properties are in her husband's name. He also maintains a bank account with Bank of America (Account No. 444018444272) and is the sole signatory of the account and locker. Due to his vegetative state, Petitioner No.1 is unable to access these resources, further complicating the family's financial situation. Hence, petitioners approached this Court seeking a direction to appoint petitioner No.1 as guardian of her husband Ravinder Godishala to administer bank accounts and also to sell his immovable property and car in the USA.
2. Ms.M. Raja Lakshmi, learned counsel representing learned counsel for petitioners Ms. S.Madhavi, made her submissions reiterating the averments in the writ affidavit. She relied on the legal precedents to substantiate her plea. They are: 4
1) Uma Mittal v. Union of India 1, 2) Aruna Ramchandra Shabbaugh v. Union of India 2, 3) Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM 3 and 4) Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala 4 .
According to learned counsel, petitioner has no alternative remedy, hence, approached this Court invoking the doctrine of Parens Patriae.
3. Petitioners have taken out I.A.No. 1 of 2024 seeking impleadment of parents of Ravinder Godishala as petitioners 3 and 4. The said Application was ordered on 16.10.2024.
4. Heard Sri K. Anand Kumar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General and learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare.
5. The law on the doctrine of Parens Patriae is now elaborately discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan's case (supra) and in paragraphs 45 and 46, it has been held as under:
" 45. Thus, the constitutional courts may also act as parens patriae so as to meet the ends of justice. But the said exercise of 1 AIR 2020 Allahabad High Court 202 2 (2011) 4 SCC 454 (Paras 127 & 131), 3 (2018) 16 SCC 368 4 2019 SCC Online Ker 739 5 power is not without limitation. The courts cannot in every and any case invoke the parens patriae doctrine. The said doctrine has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian.
46. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, has submitted that the said doctrine has been expanded by the England and Wales Court of Appeal in L (Vulnerable Adults with Capacity : Court's Jurisdiction), In re (No. 2) [L (Vulnerable Adults with Capacity : Court's Jurisdiction), In re (No. 2), 2013 Fam 1 : (2012) 3 WLR 1439 : (2012) 3 All ER 1064 (CA)] . The case was in the context of "elder abuse" wherein a man in his 50s behaved aggressively towards his parents, physically and verbally, controlling access to visitors and seeking to coerce his father into moving into a care home against his wishes. While it was assumed that the elderly parents did have capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 in that neither was subject to "an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain", it was found that the interference with the process of their decision making arose from undue influence and duress inflicted by their son. The Court of Appeal referred to the judgment in SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage), In re [SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage), In re, 2005 EWHC 2942 : (2006) 1 FLR 867 (Fam)] to find that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the High Court existed in relation to "vulnerable if 'capacitous' adults". The cited decision of the England and Wales High Court (Family Division) affirmed the existence of a "great safety net" of the inherent jurisdiction in relation to all vulnerable adults. The term "great safety net" was coined by Lord Donaldson in the Court of Appeal judgment which was later quoted with approval by the House of Lords in F (Mental Patient :
Sterilisation), In re [F (Mental Patient : Sterilisation), In re, (1990) 2 AC 1 : (1989) 2 WLR 1025 (CA & HL)] . In para 79 of SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity : Marriage), In re [SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity :
Marriage), In re, 2005 EWHC 2942 : (2006) 1 FLR 867 (Fam)] Munby, J. observes:6
"The inherent jurisdiction can be invoked wherever a vulnerable adult is, or is reasonably believed to be, for some reason deprived of the capacity to make the relevant decision, or disabled from making a free choice, or incapacitated or disabled from giving or expressing a real and genuine consent. The cause may be, but is not for this purpose limited to, mental disorder or mental illness. A vulnerable adult who does not suffer from any kind of mental incapacity may nonetheless be entitled to the protection of the inherent jurisdiction if he is, or is reasonably believed to be, incapacitated from making the relevant decision by reason of such things as constraint, coercion, undue influence or other vitiating factors."
6. Further, in Shobha Gopalakrishnan (supra), the Kerala High Court, in the absence of any specific provision in any Statue to deal with the procedure for such appointment of guardian to a victim lying in 'camatose state', framed guidelines as a temporary measure till an appropriate enactment is legislated as to how guardians are to be appointed vis-a-vis an individual who is lying in comatose state, based on the inputs secured from different corners. They read as under:
i) petitioner/s seeking for appointment of Guardian to a person lying in comatose state shall disclose the particulars of the property, both movable and immovable, owned and possessed by the patient lying in comatose state.
ii) The condition of the person lying in comatose state shall be got ascertained by causing him to be examined by a duly constituted Medical Board, of whom one shall definitely be a qualified Neurologist.
iii) A simultaneous visit of the person lying in comatose state, at his residence, shall be caused to be made through the Revenue authorities, not below the rank of a Tahsildar and a report shall be procured as to all the relevant facts and figures, including the particulars of the close relatives, their financial conditions and such other aspects.
iv) The person seeking appointment as Guardian of a person lying in comatose state shall be a close relative (spouse or children) and all the persons to be classified as legal heirs in the due course shall be in the party array. In the absence of the suitable close 7 relative, a public official such as 'Social Welfare officer' can be sought to be appointed as a Guardian to the person lying in 'comatose state'.
v) The person applying for appointment as Guardian shall be one who is legally competent to be appointed as a Guardian vi) The appointment of a Guardian as above shall only be in respect of the specific properties and bank accounts/such other properties of the person lying in comatose state; to be indicated in the order appointing the Guardian and the Guardian so appointed shall act always in the best interest of the person lying in 'comatose state'.
vii) The person appointed as Guardian shall file periodical reports in every six months before the Registrar General of this Court, which shall contain the particulars of all transactions taken by the Guardian in respect of the person and property of the patient in comatose state; besides showing the utilization of the funds received and spent by him/her.
viii) The Registrar General shall cause to maintain a separate Register with regard to appointment of Guardian to persons lying in 'comatose state' and adequate provision to keep the Reports filed by the Guardian appointed by this Court.
ix) It is open for this Court to appoint a person as Guardian to the person lying in comatose state, either temporarily or for a specified period or permanently, as found to be appropriate.
x) If there is any misuse of power or misappropriation of funds or non-extension of requisite care and protection or support with regard to the treatment and other requirements of the person lying in comatose state, it is open to bring up the matter for further consideration of this Court to re-open and revoke the power, to take appropriate action against the person concerned, who was appointed as the Guardian and also to appoint another person/public authority/Social Welfare Officer (whose official status is equal to the post of District Probation Officer) as the Guardian.
xi) It shall be for the Guardian appointed by the Court to meet the obligations/duties similar to those as described under Section 15 of the National Trust Act and to maintain and submit the accounts similar to those contained in Section 16.
xii) The Guardian so appointed shall bring the appointment to the notice of the Social Welfare Officer having jurisdiction in the place of residence, along with a copy of the verdict appointing him as Guardian, enabling the Social Welfare Officer of the area to visit the person lying in 'comatose state' at random and to submit a report, if so necessitated, calling for further action/interference of this Court.
xiii) The transactions in respect of the property of the person lying in 'comatose state', by the Guardian, shall be strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. If the Guardian appointed is found to be abusing the power or neglects or acts contrary to the best interest of the person lying in 'comatose state', any relative or next friend may apply to this Court for removal of such Guardian.
xiv) The Guardian appointed shall seek and obtain specific permission from this Court, if he/she intends to transfer the person lying in comatose state from the jurisdiction of this Court to another State or Country, whether it be for availing better treatment or otherwise.
7. Relying on the above two judgments, the High Court at Allahabad in Uma Mittal's case (supra), directed 8 appointment of petitioner No.1 therein as guardian for the purpose of protecting the interest, administer bank accounts, investments, proprietorship business etc. and in the event of necessity to sale the immovable property standing in the name of her husband and to use the proceeds towards medical treatment. In the said judgment, Allahabad High Court issued guidelines, Clauses (vii) and (viii) of which read as under:
" (vii) The person appointed as a guardian will file every six (6) months (or within such period as the Court may indicate in its order) a report with the Registrar General of this Court. The report shall advert to the transactions undertaken by the guardian in respect of the assets of the person lying in comatose state. Besides this, the report shall also indicate the funds, if any, received by the guardian and their utilisation for the purposes of maintaining the person lying in comatose state.
(viii) The Registrar General of this Court will cause a separate register to be maintained which will set out inter alia the details of the proceedings, the particulars of the person appointed as a guardian and orders, if any, passed after the appointment of the guardian. Measures will also be taken by the Registrar General to preserve the reports filed by the guardian from time to time."
8. From the material placed on record, it can be deduced that petitioner No.1 has been single-handedly shouldering the responsibility of running the family, and attending to the critical medical situation of her husband. Furthermore, it is represented that there is the burden of paying instalments towards their properties in USA. Petitioner No.1 and 9 her husband having now returned to India and taking medical treatment here, and there being severe financial crunch owing to the medical situation of husband, petitioner No.1 prays for permission of the Court so as to enable her to administer bank accounts, movable and immovable properties in the USA and to sell the properties to clear the EMIs. at the USA and for the purpose of attending the medical condition of her husband, since they have exhausted their financial resources in the past one year four months. It is also pertinent to note that petitioner No.1 has impleaded parents of her husband as Petitioners 3 and 4 and there appears to be no dispute amongst the legal heirs also.
9. In the light of the same and particularly, in view of the fact that there appears to be no dispute that none of the legislative enactments are applicable qua Sri Ravindar Godishala, a person lying in comatose state and further, petitioners are in dire need of money towards medical treatment and for the welfare of family as they have exhausted their financial resources in the past and also in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shafin Jahan's case (supra) that doctrine of Parens Patriae has to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the parties before it are either mentally 10 incompetent or have not come of age and it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the said parties have either no parent/legal guardian or have an abusive or negligent parent/legal guardian, this Court appoints petitioner No.1 as guardian of her husband Sri Ravindar Godishala to do all acts and deeds for his proper medical treatment, nursing care, welfare and benefit of her husband and their child. She is also empowered to deal with her husband's assets, properties, bank accounts and also to sell his immovable property and car in the USA which stands in his name and to clear the loan obtained from US bank, etcetera and use the sale proceeds towards medical treatment of her husband and family welfare. As per the guidelines in Uma Mittal's case (supra), petitioner No.1 shall file every six months a report with the Registrar General of this Court, reflecting the transactions undertaken by her in respect of the assets and also indicate the funds, if any received by her and their utilization for the purposes of maintaining her husband lying in comatose state.
10. The Registrar General shall maintain a separate register setting out the details of the proceedings, particulars of guardian - petitioner No.1 and orders, if any passed after appointment of guardian. Registry is directed to forward a copy 11 of this order to the Secretary, Law, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for information and taking appropriate steps, forthwith.
11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, disposed of. No costs.
12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 02nd December 2024 ksld