Delhi District Court
Amit Jain vs The State on 8 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY GARG-I,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
GP no. 18/2024
CNR No. DLCT01-017564-2024
Amit Jain
S/o Late Sh. Satish Chand Jain
R/o H.No.4220, Ahiran Street,
Near Laxmi Devi Jain Senior Girls Secondary School
Pahari Dhiraj, North Delhi
Delhi-110006.
........PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2. Smt. Kamlesh Jain
W/o Late Satish Chand Jain,
R/o H.No. 4220, Second Floor, Ahiran Street,
Near Laxmi Devi Jain Senior Girls Secondary School
Pahari Dhiraj, North Delhi
Delhi-110006.
3. Smt. Pooja Jain
Wife of Sh. Nitin Jain,
2075, Gali no.38,
Nai Wala, Karol Bagh,
Delhi-110005.
.......RESPONDENTS
Date of filing :07.11.2024
Date of arguments :08.04.2025
Date of Decision :08.04.2025
Digitally
signed by
SANJAY SANJAY
Date:
GARG
GARG 2025.04.08
16:34:34
+0530
GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 1 of7
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 14 of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 r/w Section 151 CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking guardianship certificate in respect of Ms. Megha Jain (hereafter referred to as 'the alleged disabled person') aged about 37 years as she is mentally challenged person and permanently disabled person and unable to take decision of her own.
2. Brief of the case as per the petition is as follows:-
2.1 Petitioner is the son of Late Sh. Satish Chand Jain and Smt. Kamlesh Jain. Sh. Satish Chand Jain had passed away on 15.02.2023 leaving behind the petitioner (son), respondent no.2 Smt. Kamlesh Jain (wife), respondent no.3 Smt. Pooja Jain (daughter) and the alleged disabled person Ms. Megha Jain (daughter) as his legal heirs. The alleged disabled person is younger sister of the petitioner. She is suffering from Bilatral severe Pes Planus and mental retardation since her birth (congenital disease). It is averred that she was given some treatment by doctors till she attained the age of 15 years with no success in betterment of her congenital disease. She has more than 80% intellectual disability and not in a mental state to take decisions for herself. Her Medical Handicapped certificate was issued by the office of medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital. Apart from said mental disability she is not suffering with any other physical ailment and is leading an otherwise healthy life and not under any kind of regular treatment.Digitally signed by SANJAY
SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.04.08 16:34:41 +0530 GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 2 of7 2.2 The alleged disabled person has been taken care of by her family. After the death of father of the alleged disabled person, all her needs including medical needs etc. are being taken care of by the petitioner. It is averred that on 13.06.2023 mother of the petitioner i.e. respondent no.2 had suffered a stroke and since then she has not been keeping good health. Respondent no.3 is the elder sister of petitioner and alleged disabled person. She is married and residing with her family at her marital home at Karol Bagh, Delhi-05. It is averred that respondents no.2 and 3 have no objection if guardianship certificate is issued in favour of petitioner for taking legal decisions and to act on behalf of alleged disabled person including decisions to deal with immovable property.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the concerned SDM to file status report of alleged disabled person. SDM has filed report whereby statement of two witnesses Sh. Brij Mohan Dua and Sh. Ajay Kumar Maurya have been recorded who have stated that Megha Jain is 80% handicap and has no source of income and is dependent upon her brother (petitioner herein) and has 1/4th share in H.No.4220, Ahiran Gali near Laxmi Devi Jain Sr. Secondary School Pahari Dheeraj where she is residing with her brother and mother. On 08.04.2025, wife and mother of the petitioner and alleged disabled person were present through VC. Court queries were put to them.
3.1 Respondents no.2 and 3, being mother and sister of the petitioner have given their no objection by way of affidavits Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 respectively.
Digitally signed by SANJAYSANJAY GARG GARG Date:
2025.04.08 16:34:48 +0530 GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 3 of7
4. In support of the petition, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1. In his examination-in-chief as PW-1, petitioner reiterated the contents of his petition and proved on record documents viz- copy of Aadhar card of Megha (alleged disabled person) as Ex.PW1/1; copy of death certificate of Sh. Satish Chand Jain (father of petitioner) as Ex.PW1/2; copy of surviving member certificate as Ex.PW1/3; copy of Medical Handicapped certificate of Megha as Ex.PW1/4; copy of medical report of Smt. Kamlesh Jain (mother of petitioner) as Ex.PW1/5; copy of relinquishment deed dated 26.10.2023 executed by respondents no.2 and 3 as Ex.PW1/6; copy of his Aadhar card as Ex.PW1/8; no objection affidavits of respondents no.2 and 3 as Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 respectively; copies of Aadhar cards of respondents no.2 and 3 as Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 respectively.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully.
6. Section 14 of the RPD Act provides as under: -
14. Provision for guardianship (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, where a district court or any designated authority, as notified by the State Government, finds that a person with disability, who had been provided adequate and appropriate support but is unable to take legally binding decisions, may be provided further support of a limited guardian to take legally binding decisions on his behalf in consultation with such person, in such manner, as may be prescribed by the State Government:
PROVIDED that the District Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, may grant total support to the person with disability requiring such support or where the limited guardianship is to be granted repeatedly, in which case, the decision regarding the support to be provided shall be reviewed by the Court or the designated authority, as the case may be, to determine the nature and manner of support to be provided.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.04.08 16:34:55 +0530 GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 4 of7 Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section, "limited guardianship" means a system of joint decision which operates on mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with disability, which shall be limited to a specific period and for specific decision and situation and shall operate in accordance to the will of the person with disability.
(2) On and from the date of commencement of this Act, every guardian appointed under any provision of any other law for the time being in force, for a person with disability shall be deemed to function as a limited guardian.
(3) Any person with disability aggrieved by the decision of the designated authority appointing a legal guardian may prefer an appeal to such appellate authority, as may be notified by the State Government for the purpose.
7. A bare perusal of Section 14 referred above would show that this Court has to come to a finding that the 'person with disability' is one who is unable to take legally binding decisions, should be provided for support of limited guardian to take legally binding decision on his/her behalf. Proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 14 of the RPD Act also provides that wherever limited guardianship right is granted the support provided shall be reviewed by the Court to determine the nature and manner of support to be provided.
8. It is pertinent to mention that expression 'person with disability' is defined by Section 2 (s), which reads as under:-
"Person with disability means a person with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impariment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others;"
9. Ld. counsel for the petitioner filed copy of Medical Handicapped Certificate Ex.PW1/4 in respect of Megha, D/o Sh. S.C.Jain, issued by LNJPN hospital, New Delhi, whereby Megha has been declared to be suffering from Bilatral severe Pes Planus and mental Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.04.08 GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 5 of7 16:35:03 +0530 retardation and her disability is more than 80%.
10. On careful appreciation of the aforesaid scenario as well as after seeing and hearing the alleged disabled person Ms. Megha in the Court, it stand proved that she is suffering from severe mental retardation. She is unable to take care of herself independently and needs all round care, comfort and protection. The term "care-giver" is defined by Section 2(d) of RPD 2016. It means any person including parents and other family members who with or without payment provides care, support or assistance to a person with disability.
11. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has been able to prove that Ms. Megha is suffering from disability within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act. Rule 6(c) of the Rights of person with disabilities Rule 2018 specifically recognize other blood relatives or care givers or prominent personality of the locality as the care-giver and there is no reason to rule out that petitioner/real brother is not a suitable person to take care of the disabled person.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner namely Amit Jain, is appointed as a legal guardian of Ms. Megha, D/o Late Sh. Satish Chand Jain, who is the person with disability. Accordingly, the petitioner Amit Jain is appointed as the guardian of person of the alleged disabled person Ms. Megha Jain for a period of five years from the date of order for the welfare, medical care, support and protection of his sister as well as to take legal decision and to act on her behalf. On completion of the said period, or on the intervention of any family member during such period, the Court reserves the power to call upon the petitioner to render accounts in such Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY Date:
GARG GARG 2025.04.08 16:35:11 +0530 GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 6 of7 manner as it deems fit. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not alienate or dispose of the property having share of Ms. Megha Jain without prior permission of the Court. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The necessary certificate be issued as per the Rules on petitioner furnishing undertaking/bond.
13. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG Announced in the open court GARG Date: 2025.04.08 on this 8th Day of April, 2025 16:35:16 +0530 (SANJAY GARG-I) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi (D) GP No. 18/2024 Amit Jain vs. State & ors. Page 7 of7