S. D. vs Govt Of NCT Of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 973

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 973

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
S.D. - Appellant
Versus
Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1271 of 2020
Decided On : 29-10-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Mr. Kapish Seth, Mr. Mr. ityunjay Singh, Ms. Alankriti Dwivedi, Ms. Samruddhi Bendbhar and Mr. Satwik Misra, Advocates, for the Appellant; Mr. Anupam Srivastava, ASC for GNCTD with Mr. Vasuh Misra, Advocates, Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Rai, Mr. S.K. Pandey, Mr. Chandrashekhar AC, Mr. Awanish Kumar & Ms. Sreoshi Chatterjee, Advocates, Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ravi Sharma, Ms. Gunjan Mangla, Ms. Madhulika Rai Sharma & Mr. Anjani Kumar Rai, Advocates, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr Advocate with Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker and Ms. Monalisa Kosaria, Advocates, Mr. Harish Salve, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocates with Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, Advocate; Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, for the Respondent.

Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Sections 13 and 14, and Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 - Petition filed by the wife for guardianship of husband suffering from Fronto Temporal Dementia. Court ruled that the health and well-being of the husband must be prioritized, recognizing the necessity of establishing a Guardianship Committee comprising the wife and sons due to the husband's incapacity. Court considered the rights and testamentary intent of the husband, although existing controversies were evident regarding relationships with a companion. 'Total support' may be established under the law considering the stated incapacity of the husband. Directives issued for managing affairs in the best interest of the individual. (Paras 141, 272, and 276)

(B) Parens Patriae Jurisdiction - Applied for the purpose of ensuring welfare of individuals unable to care for themselves and necessitates the establishment of an environment conducive to their well-being. (Paras 199, 202, and 207)

Facts of the case:
The wife of Mr. DMP sought appointment as the legal guardian of her husband, who suffers from Fronto Temporal Dementia, amidst family disputes regarding the management of his health and financial affairs. A previous habeas corpus petition had revealed his deteriorating condition and extreme family tensions. A complex situation developed involving relatives and conflicting claims of relationship from a companion. (Paras 1, 6, 240, and 241)

Findings of Court:
Establishment of a Guardianship Committee comprising the wife, two sons, and their brother wherein all decisions regarding personal and financial matters would be made unanimously in consideration of Mr. DMP's health status. The court emphasized that such matters must restore a supportive family environment. (Paras 272 and 276)

Issues: The Court examined the appointment of guardians and nature of mental incapacity while considering the interplay of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and Mental Healthcare Act in relation to the husband's condition and familial relationships. (Paras 140 and 141)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that both the legislation governing mental health and the welfare of individuals necessitate an emphasis on the family structure, while recognizing the limits of individual agency due to the person’s mental incapacity. The need for a balance between autonomy, family dynamics, and legal capacity was also established. (Paras 220 and 273)

Result: Petition for guardianship granted; a Guardianship Committee established.

Table of Content
1. legal recognition of marital status. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. wife's application for guardianship. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. impact of mental condition on decision-making. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. the necessity for appointed guardianship. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 27)
5. legal framework governing mental health decisions. (Para 35 , 41 , 42)
6. emergency interpretation of guardianship roles. (Para 270 , 271 , 272)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - The well-known proverb "health is wealth" has deep and varying connotations. Historically, it connoted physical health but in modern society the word "health "would include physical, mental and emotional health of a person. The plight of an extremely well to do mentally ill person (hereinafter Mr. DMP') with a large family is the subject matter of the present petition. Due to the sensitive nature of this case and the persons involved, all the individuals are referred to by their abbreviated initials and not by full name. The Petitioner is the wife of the mentally ill Mr. DMP. An application has been moved by the Respondent no. 5 in respect of the nomenclature used for the Petitioner which is dealt with below, before proceeding further.

CM APPL. 21096/2021 (for modification of o/d 4th June, 2021)

2. This application has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 seeking partial modification of order dated 4th June, 2021, to the extent that it refers to the Petitioner - Mrs. SD as the "wife of DMP". During the course of hearing, Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have repeatedly objected to Mrs. SD being referred to as Mr. DMP's wife.

3. It is seen from the record that, Mrs. SD has been shown as the wife in the election records of Mr. DMP since inception. She has also borne three children with Mr. DMP. Mr. DMP himself has never challenged the fact that she was his wife. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ No. 22948/2011 titled Smt S.D.& Ors. v. Bihar State Housing Board & Ors., relating to a land dispute also clearly acknowledges that Mrs. SD is the wife of Mr. DMP. The ld. Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019 titled R.S. v. State & Ors. has also referred to Mrs. SD as the wife of Mr. DMP repeatedly.

4. Thus, the objections of Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are bereft of any merit.

5. With these observations, the application is dismissed.

W.P.(C) 1271/2020 & CM APPLs. 4396/2020, 7762/2020, 23213/2020, 24330/2021 (for interim arrangement), 24951/2021 (for adjudication on maintainability), 36031-32/2021 (for directions), 36345/2021 (for exemption)

Brief Facts:

6. The Petitioner - Mrs. SD is a 76 year-old lady and the wife of the mentally ill individual who is referred to as Mr. DMP. He was diagnosed with Fronto-temporal Dementia (hereinafter, 'FTD') in 2019, the details of which shall be gone into hereinafter. He is a 7th term Member of Parliament from Bihar and from the facts that have emerged in this case, he is a man of means. Mr. DMP had three sons, one of whom has pre-deceased him. His current family consists of his wife, his other two sons, their wives and their children, as also the wife and children of his deceased son. Mr. DMP's younger son - Mr. RJS is Respondent No.3 in this petition and his older son - Mr. RS is Respondent No.4 in this petition. He also has a younger brother - Mr. US, who has filed an intervention application in this matter. Mr. DMP has also been in the company of one Ms. UD, who is stated to have been living with him for approximately 47 years, who also claims that she is the wife. In so far as Ms. UD is concerned, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the status of Ms. UD, though it appears to have been broadly accepted that Ms. UD was the companion of Mr. DMP. Whether Ms. UD was his wife or not is clearly not an issue which has been raised in the present petition, for adjudication. Mr. DMP currently lives in his official residence in New Delhi, along with Ms. UD and Mrs. KR i.e., his daughter-in-law from the deceased son. Ms. UD is Respondent No.5 in this