IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Manushree Sharma & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-5001 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks mandamus for parent care. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on negligence and privacy breached. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court finds assertions unsubstantiated. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. court denies standing due to false claims. (Para 14 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. petition dismissed; costs imposed for misconduct. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Bajaj, J.
Petitioner No.1-Mrs.Manushree Sharma claiming herself as next friend of her mother, Mrs. Santosh Joshi-petitioner No.2 has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 Constitution of India on her behalf for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official-respondents to: get the CCTV camera removed from the place of residence of petitioner No.2; get the petitioner No.2 medically examined from Board of Doctors preferably at PGI, Chandigarh or Sector 32, Government Hospital, Chandigarh to ascertain her mental health for treatment and get the private-respondents No. 5 and 6 evicted from House No. 592, Sector 6, Panchkula who being son, daughter-in-law, respectively have been neglecting petitioner No.2.
2. Briefly, as per averments, the petitioner No.2-Mrs. Santosh Joshi retired as a school Teacher, who suffered depression in the year 1997 which resulted in attacks of "Paranoid Schizophrenia", and later in the year 2015, she turned bed ridden. The medical prescription etc. of Mrs. Santosh Joshi is not in possession of Mrs. Manushree Sharma-petitioner No.1. Mrs. Santosh Joshi alongwith her husband-Jawaharlal Joshi was residing at House No. 592, Sector 6, Panchkula, and in the year 2010, their son Dr. Arun Joshi-respondent No.5 alongwith his wife Mrs.Shivani Joshi-respondent No.6 and their two children came to reside with them. In May, 2011, Jawaharlal Joshi suffered heart ailment and his surgical intervention was undertaken with the care of Dr. Arun Joshi, but thereafter, he and Mrs. Shivani Joshi started neglecting the old parents. Mrs. Manushree Sharma being a Teacher in school could not help the parents on regular basis, therefore, she requested her brother Dr. Arun Joshi to fulfill his responsibilities towards the ailing parents. Mrs. Manushree Sharma resided with her husband Rajinder Sharma at various stations in Haryana because of his frequent transfers, however, in the year 2011 after his transfer to Chandigarh, she shifted to Panchkula. Mrs. Manushree Sharma left her job in the year 2015 in order to take care of her ailing mother and started visiting their residence, and as she could not remain with the parents she engaged caretaker, to whom salary was being paid by Jawaharlal Joshi. This move was opposed by Dr. Arun Joshi, and when Mrs. Manushree Sharma tried to explain the necessity, Dr. Arun Joshi turned aggressive and violent, which resulted in injuries to her. On 03.12.2018, Jawaharlal Joshi had given a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, but the official-respondents refused to take action, for want of the presence of senior citizen and few days after the alleged complaint, the senior citizen died of cancer on 19.12.2018. The caretaker employed by Mrs. Manushree Sharma is taking care of old mother. In January, 2019, a CCTV camera was installed by Dr. Arun Joshi and Mrs. Shivani Joshi in the room of Mrs. Santosh Joshi, which amounts to breach of privacy, and because Dr. Arun Joshi and Mrs. Shivani Joshi have failed to fulfill their duties towards the aged parents, therefore, on these averments, Mrs. Manushree Sharma on behalf of her mother has prayed for the above noticed reliefs.
3. On 25.02.2019, this Court issued notice of motion in the writ petition and had also directed medical examination of Mrs. Santosh Joshi by a team of doctors headed by Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sector-6 Panchkula. In compliance of the direction, her examination was conducted on 27.02.2019 and report in this regard Mark 'A' is on record.
4. Thereafter, Mrs
The court established that an inquiry is mandatory under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC to determine if a party is incapable of protecting their interests due to mental infirmity before appointing a next frien....
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 a....
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.