IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that in the absence of specific legal provisions for guardianship of individuals with mental disorders, it can exercise its jurisdiction under the doctrine of 'Parens Patriae' to appoint a suitable guardian to ensure the welfare of the dependent individual.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the Respondent No.2. There is no need to issue any notice to the Respondent-Banks as well as Respondent No.5, who is suffering from Alzheimer disease.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. Petitioner is the daughter of Respondent No.5, who is suffering from Alzheimer's disease and is unable to take care of herself on account of her medical condition that she is going through. The Petitioner states that she is the only child of Respondent No.5 and has already been taking care of the day to day needs and expenses of Respondent No.5 including the expenses incurred on account of her medical treatment. She also states that she has already appointed a care taker for Respondent No.5. She further submits that presently there is no provision under any existing law which would unable the Petitioner to get her appointed as legal guardian for Respondent No.5. She further submits that Alzheimer's disease is a kind of mental disorder and if it is seen to be so, the Petitioner would be able to obtain a declaration from this Court under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1987 or any other applicable law that she being a daughter of Respondent No.5, would be her legal guardian for all purposes.

4. These submissions of the Petitioner were considered by this Court in its detailed order passed on 14/9/2023. In Paragraph 5 of the order, this court noted that there was no provision made in Mental Health Act, 1987 or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 for appointing a son or a daughter or a sibling of an aged person suffering from mental health issues to be a legal guardian of that person. It was with this finding that this Court had said that this Petition would be entertained by this Court. However, this Court also expressed an opinion that there must be available on record sufficient material so as to form, in a reasonable manner, an opinion that Respondent No.5 is indeed suffering from Alzheimer disease of such intensity as to be treated as equivalent to mental disorder suffered by Respondent No.5. This Court, therefore, requested Dean of Sir. J. J. Group of Hospitals to appoint a competent Neurologist to examine the Petitioner's mother and submit a report to this Court.

5. Learned AGP has accordingly submitted a report of Dr. Kamlesh A. Jagiasi, Professor and Head of Department , Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, along with covering letter. The Covering letter dtd. 3/10/2023 and the report of the expert dtd. 27/9/2023, both are taken on record and collectively marked as document "A" for identification.

6. The report of the expert doctor shows that Respondent No.5. is suffering from Alzheimer Disease (Frontal Variant), which has progressive irreversible cognitive decline. It further shows that Respondent No.5 has severe impairment of executive dysfunction. Finally, it concludes that Respondent No.5 has major neuro cognitive decline and that she requires constant nursing care and assistance in her affairs. Relevant portion of this report is extracted as below:-

"After detailed examination, the neurological assessment is as follows. Mrs. Tanuja Mohite is suffering from Alzheimer Disease (Frontal Variant) or Frontotemporal Dementia, that is a progressive irreversible cognitive decline. She has severe impairment of executive dysfunction. She has major cognitive decline, rendering her dependent for activities of daily living. Since she has major neurocognitive decline, she he requires constant nursing care and assistance in her affairs of life. She has been on adequate medical care for the same so far."

7. It would be seen from the above referred report that the Alzheimer's disease suffered by Respondent No.5 has a progressive decline in health condition of Respondent No.5 and the decline today is so much that she has severe impairment of executivefunction and also major cognitive decline, rendering her dependent for