The court reaffirmed the principle that guardianship for mentally ill persons should prioritize family relationships, allowing spouses and immediate relatives to jointly manage health and financial affairs, reflecting a commitment to support and protect vulnerable individuals.

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