Allahabad High Court Allows Wife To Sell Self-Acquired Property Of Husband Who Was Suffering From Permanent Vegetative State
The Allahabad High Court allowed a Wife to sell the self-acquired property of her husband, who is in a permanent vegetative state, to facilitate funds for his medical treatment.
The Court allowed the Petition and observed that mental incompetency is an exceptional circumstance that justifies using the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Bench noted that if the person is in a vegetative state, the Court can use Parens Patriae jurisdiction.
The Bench comprising Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar observed, “She will have the right to take decisions on behalf of her husband for his proper medical treatment, nursing care, welfare and benefit of her husband and their children with power to do all acts, duties and things with respect to all the assets, properties of her husband Vikas Sharma.”
Advocate Ashvanee Kumar Srivastav appeared for the Petitioner, and Advocate Anupam Kulshreshtha appeared as Amicus Curaie. Additional Solicitor General S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate Paras Nath Rai, Standing Counsel Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, and Additional Chief Standing Counsel Ambrish Shukla appeared for the Respondent.
Petitioner’s husband had purchased a piece of land and got it registered. However, his name had been mutated in the revenue records. The Petitioner’s husband meanwhile met with an accident and sustained head injuries, leading to a ‘permanent vegetative state.’ The Petitioner approached the Court by way of a Writ Petition seeking permission to sell the said property to meet the expenses of treatment of her husband.
The Court ascertained the issue:
“Who should be the Guardian of a person who can administer or handle the property of such a person who is in comatose state, as he does not fall under the ambit of mental illness nor will come under the ambit of person with disabilities”.
The Court made a clear distinction between the two Acts, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Mental Healthcare Act only deals with delivering mental healthcare services and related matters. When appointing a nominated representative, Section 14(4)(b) gives preference to a relative by blood, marriage, or adoption over a caregiver. Section 14(4)(c) acknowledges that a family member provides more care to a mentally ill person.
On the other hand, the Bench observed that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act provides persons with disabilities the right to access justice and legal capacity. Section 13 of the Act gives persons with disabilities the right to make decisions about their financial affairs and own or inherit movable or immovable property. To protect this right, Section 13(3) requires that if a conflict of interest arises between the person with a disability and the supporting person, the supporting person must abstain from providing support. Section 14 provides limited guardianship for persons with disabilities who have expressed their desires or can express them in the future. The provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, apply to persons with disabilities of varying degrees, as the definition of disabilities is very broad.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v Union Of India & Ors [2011(4) SCC 454] and noted that in light of the critical condition of a patient who is in a comatose state and urgently requires medical attention and support, the need for funds to manage the exceptional situation cannot be overlooked or compromised. Therefore, the Court is responsible for utilizing its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to address this matter in the patient's best interest and well-being. The Bench noted that invoking Parens Patriae jurisdiction requires exceptional circumstances, which must be used with great care and seriousness.
"This category of persons are those who are able to interact though not fully coherent. Hence, Guardian was to be appointed under Section 14 of the Act. However, for a person in comatose state, there is no interaction and the victim would not respond to any stimuli, hence, the provisions of personal disability defined under Section 2(s) of the Act cannot be said to be attracted in such cases. Therefore, in the larger interest of patient lying in comatose state, who is in urgent need of treatment, support and for that they need funds to take care of this extraordinary situation, which cannot be ignored or compromised, hence, the Court is consciously bound to invoke power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to deal with such situation", the Bench noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Pooja Sharma v State Of U.P. And 2 Others
