The court exercises parens patriae jurisdiction to appoint a guardian for an individual in a vegetative state due to inadequate legal provisions.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed seeking issue of Writ of declaration, declaring the petitioner as Guardian for Mr.Subramanian Anbuthiruchelvam to deal with the property situated at Mannargudi Town, Old Thanjavur Rastha South, Ward No.1, Block No.55, T.S.No.3435, measuring an extent of 421.41 Square Meter, that is 4536 Sq.feet of land together with the house, along with all other amenities.

2. According to the petitioner, she married Subramanian Anbuthiruchelvam on 19.01.2001 and the marriage has been registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Needamangalam in Serial No.1 of 2001. Out of said wedlock, two female children were born to them. At the time of marriage, the petitioner's husband was employed in Singapore and therefore, after marriage they got settled down at Singapore temporarily. The petitioner's father-in-law V.S.Subramanian had settled his property described above in favour of the petitioner's husband under registered Document No.212 of 2009 registered on the file of Sub Registrar, Mannargudi. The settlement had been acted upon and revenue documents had been mutated in the name of the petitioner's husband. Thus he had become the absolute owner of the same.

3. During March 2020, the petitioner's husband got affected by right acute subdural haemorrhage. The said illness made the petitioner's husband to slip into coma. The petitioner's husband underwent surgeries number of times and inspite of the same, he has become a living vegetable. He is not able to think, decide or act on any aspect. He is completely bed-ridden and not able to move. In these circumstances, the petitioner moved the Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore for her appointment as guardian of her husband under Section 20 of the Mental Capacity Act, Singapore. The said Court after satisfying about the incapacity of petitioner's husband was pleased to appoint her as deputy to make decisions on his behalf and the petitioner was allowed to operate her husband's bank account.

4. Due to petitioner's husband's continuous medical treatment, it has become very difficult for her to meet family expenses and medical expenses. The only immovable property available in the name of petitioner's husband is situated at Mannargudi within the territorial limits of this Court. The said property is not generating any income and requires spending of money on its maintenance. The petitioner is not in a position to move away from her husband due to his medical conditions and the above mentioned property is in danger of being encroached by strangers. If the said property is sold, the sale proceeds can be better utilized for treatment of petitioner's husband. It is also stated that the petitioner's daughters are not having any objection for appointing the petitioner as guardian of the above mentioned property of her husband to enable her to deal with the same. There is a lacunae in the present law of guardianship relating to appointment of guardians for persons lying in coma state or vegetative state. Therefore, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of above writ petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the present law relating to appointment of guardians do not contain any provision for appointment of guardian of the person or property of persons lying in coma state or vegetative state and hence this Court has to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and appoint the petitioner as guardian of his property lying within its jurisdiction.

6. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied on the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan and another Vs. State of Kerala and others, 2019 KER 15011. He also relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sasikala Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.A.No. 1538 of 2024.

7. The daughter of the petitioner's family, the respondents 6 and 7 filed a supporting affidavit stating that they have no objection for appointment of the pet