The absence of a comprehensive statute for appointing guardians for persons in vegetative states led the court to adopt the principle of pro-tem guardianship, subject to safeguards, and impose restrictions on the operation and sale of assets for the person's benefit.

ORDER

1. The 1st Petitioner, Sonia Fazal Khan, is the wife of one Fazal Khan. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, Naeema and Tasneem, are Sonia's and Fazal's married daughters. The Petition says that for the last decade Fazal has been living in a vegetative state. He not only has dementia but has had multiple strokes. There are other complications. The prayer in the Petition is to appoint his wife, Sonia, the 1st Petitioner as the guardian of the Fazal's personal and property.

2. In previous orders in other cases we have noticed that there is no structured provision in law as yet to deal with these situations. There are some indications in the Disabilities Act and in similar statutes but a comprehensive statute dealing with these situations and allowing pro-tem guardianship is not yet in place. We refer to our decision of 13th December 2021 in Lubina Mohamed Agarwal and Anr v Union of India and Ors. In paragraph 19 of our order dated we granted interim relief but subject to certain safeguards. We propose to adopt the same principle here.

3. First, as to Fazal's condition. There is a reasonably recent clinical report of 1st October 2021. The report was submitted to this Court pursuant to an order of 25th August 2021 (Ujjal Bhuyan and Madhav J Jamdar, JJ). The report tells us that Fazal has dementia, very likely due to a multi-infarct state dating back to 2011. He has pneumonitis and bed sores. He has been hospitalized often. He is totally bed-ridden. He is administered oxygen nasally. He has spontaneous eye movements but cannot maintain eye contact, speak, understand, sign, move his right side or take any decision. He is totally dependent on his care-givers. He is fed through a Ryles tube. He has Foley catheter. His brain MRI of July 2006 suggests a di

4. The schedule-I at page 103 sets out the quite considerable items of monthly expenditure and the amounts being spent.

5. At present we are concerned with two assets. One is a bank account with the Saraswat Bank. This is bank account No. SBGen/013200128869846. It is with the Old Military Road, Marol, Andheri (East) Branch. It stands in the name of Fazal Khan as the first holder. Sonia is the only joint holder.

6. The other property in question is the residential flat shown at page 104, viz., flat No. B/607, Mayur Tower, CHSL, old Military Road, CTS No. 258, Village Marol, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 059.

7. At this stage we note that there is a Intervention Application by one Asif Fazal Khan. He lives elsewhere at another address. He seeks leave to intervene. He says that he is the "de facto" guardian of Fazal for many years. There is absolutely nothing in his application to show this. Although the Petition by Sonia and her daughters annexes a large number of documents showing expenses and bills paid by Sonia and in Sonia's name, there is not one scrap of paper adduced by Asif in support of his contention.

8. Asif then says that although his parents are alive, there are two flats and both are what he describes as " a shared household" and therefore he, the son, has some sort of enforceable legal right or entitlement to either or both of these flats. The submission is so ill-founded and illogical that it only needs to be stated to be rejected. In any conceptualization of succession law for any community or faith, Asif can have no right, title or interest whatsoever in either of these flats one in his father's name and other in his mother's name so long as his parents are alive. The suggestion that Asif has a settled and enforceable share in either of the flats in the lifetimes of the real owners, his parents, is laughable. The fact that he is their son does not make either of their flats 'a shared household'.

9. The fact that Asif may have been advised (or ill-advised) to adopt some domestic violence proceedings against his sisters is utterly immaterial. We do not see how Asif can complain of domestic violence when he is demonstrably not part of the domestic set-up to begin with.

10. Asif has no righ