IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Satula Devi - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1271 of 2020 & CM Appls. 697 of 2022, 9891 of 2022 and 30096 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. guardianship contested among family members. (Para 1) |
| 2. appointment of guardianship due to disputes. (Para 2) |
| 3. continued control of the sole guardian over estate. (Para 3 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. legal arguments regarding guardianship powers. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. resolution and closure of ongoing petitions. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition relates to guardianship which was sought in respect of a senior citizen who is referred to, since inception, as Mr. DMP, who was a Member of Parliament and was diagnosed with `fronto-temporal dementia'. The guardianship sought by the Petitioner/Mrs. Satula Devi (hereinafter "Mrs. SD") - i.e., Mr. DMP's wife, was vehemently contested by other family members of Mr. DMP and the petition was heard by this Court from time to time. Mrs. SD was supported by her two sons - Respondent No.4/Mr. Rajiv Sharma (hereinafter "Mr. RS"), Respondent No.3/Mr. Ranjit Sharma (hereinafter "Mr. RJS") and their respective families. However, Respondent No.5/Ms. Uma Devi (hereinafter "Ms. UD"), who was Mr. DMP's companion, Intervener/Mr. Umesh Sharma (hereinafter "Mr. US")- Mr. DMP's brother, and Respondent No.6/Mrs. Kanchana Rai (hereinafter "Mrs. KR"), - Mr. DMP's daughter-in-law whose husband was the deceased third son of Mr. DMP, and her sons were opposing the present writ petition.
2. The present writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 29th October, 2021, whereby Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was appointed as the Supervising Guardian along with a Guardianship Committee to take care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. Subsequently, on 6th January, 2022, this Court was informed of Mr. DMP's demise on 27th December, 2021. Various disputes between the family members had also been cited on the said date and there were allegations of utilization of Mr. DMP's assets by the contesting Respondents. Accordingly, vide order dated 6th January 2022, Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw was appointed as the Sole Guardian of Mr. DMP and the Guardianship Committee was disbanded. Various directions were issued vide the said order. The same are as under:
"22. Considering the fact that this Court had appointed the Guardianship Committee and Supervising Guardian vide its previous order dated 29th October, 2021, in order to safeguard the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP, considering his demise and the continuous disputes between the family members brought to the notice of this Court today, it is clear that the Guardianship Committee cannot effectively function. Moreover, since Mr. DMP has passed away, the members of the Guardianship Committee may possibly also have claims in the estate of Mr. DMP and would be conflicted in taking decisions. There is also a need to safeguard and secure the assets so that the same, which run into thousands of crores, are not frittered away or misused in any manner. In view of the same, the following directions are issued:
(i) In view of the fact that Mr. DMP is no more, the Guardianship Committee shall stand disbanded and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), shall act as the Sole Guardian for the estate and all assets of Mr. DMP henceforth. He shall exercise the same powers mutatis mutandis, as those of the Supervising Guardian and the Guardianship Committee, in terms of order dated 29th October, 2021. Mr. T.R. Narayanan and Mr. Shrinath Banerjee, Personal Assistants of Mr. DMP, and all parties, shall now proceed strictly in accordance with the instructions given by the Sole Guardian in respect of the assets of Mr. DMP.
(ii) A report shall be placed before this Court, by Justice Endlaw (Retd.), within a period of two weeks, in respect of the following aspects:
(a) Whether the various directions concerning Mr. DMP and his assets, passed by this Court have been complied with or not in terms of the Court's earlier orders and the directions given by him?
(b) The minutes of proceedings containing the directions issued by him from time
A guardian's authority endures post the ward's death to prevent asset dissipation amidst disputes, as established under Section 41(4) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
The main legal point established is the court's authority to appoint a Sole Guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, to safeguard the assets of a deceased senior citizen and issue directions....
The court exercised parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint an interim guardian for a mentally incapacitated individual, establishing the importance of safeguarding the assets and medical decisions fo....
A guardian appointed under the Rights of the Persons with Disabilities Act has authority to manage and transfer property on behalf of the individual deemed unfit, without additional procedural constr....
Old/sick/incapacitated bank customers - Person who would be entitled to operate his bank account and can be appointed as guardian to the person.
The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in appointing a guardian, and the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 should be i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.