SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2238

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mr. Jeejeebhoy, J
VAHBIZ PERVEZ DUMASIA – Appellant
Versus
NILOUFER PERVEZ DUMASIA – Respondent
GP 8 / 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Jeejeebhoy
For the Respondents:

The High Court has jurisdiction to appoint guardians for mentally incapacitated individuals under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent, even in the absence of specific legislative provisions following the repeal of the Mental Health Act.

Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Clause XVII - Jurisdiction as to infants, idiots, and lunatics - Court has authority to appoint guardians for mentally incapacitated persons within its jurisdiction, as clarified under applicable laws. (Para 5, 6)

(B) Mental Health Act, 1987 - Repealed - Lack of provision for guardian appointment under the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 does not negate powers of High Court under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent. (Para 10)

(C) Definitions of mental illness and incapacity - Distinction made between terms in legal context and application to the case, affirming Court's authority to act in the best interest of the incapacitated individual. (Paras 11-19)

Facts of the case:
The petition was filed by two daughters seeking to be appointed guardians of their father, who suffers from severe brain injury rendering him incapacitated. They are responsible for his medical treatment and management of his properties. (Paras 15-20)

Findings of Court:
Court recognizes the lack of statutory provisions post-repeal of the Mental Health Act and exercises its jurisdiction to appoint the daughters as guardians under Clause XVII, emphasizing the need for protection and management of the individual’s property and personal care. (Paras 29-30)

Issues: The case primarily addresses jurisdiction under Clause XVII and the need for guardianship given the individual's state of mental incapacity.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the repeal of prior legislation without providing for guardianship under the current law does not diminish its authority to protect individuals through guardianship appointment, affirming its parens patriae jurisdiction. (Paras 29-34)

Result: The petition is allowed appointing the daughters as guardians and managers of the father's properties for his welfare and benefit.

Table of Content
1. interim application notice and removal (Para 1 , 2)
2. jurisdiction under clause xvii of the letters patent defined (Para 3 , 5 , 6)
3. definitions of mental health terms and distinctions (Para 4 , 8 , 10 , 12)
4. power of the high court per letters patent (Para 7 , 9)
5. definitions relating to mental illness (Para 14)
6. facts regarding the condition of mr. pervez dumasia (Para 15 , 16 , 19)
7. need and consent for guardianship established (Para 20 , 21 , 27 , 30)
8. need for guardianship and familial duties (Para 22 , 23)
9. petitioners request for guardianship approval (Para 24 , 26)
10. final ruling on guardianship appointment (Para 28 , 34)
11. inherent jurisdiction of high court (Para 29 , 31 , 32)
12. final ruling on guardianship and responsibilities (Para 33 , 35 , 36)
13. recognition of counsel's assistance in legal proceedings (Para 37)

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Jeejeebhoy, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the Interim Application No. 1768 of 2025 is wrongly on board as the same has been disposed of by order dated 24th April, 2025.

2. Accordingly, remove the Interim Application No. 1768 of 2025 from the board.

3. Mr. Jeejeebhoy further submits that as permitted by this Court by order dated 24th April, 2025, the Guardianship Petition has been amended and that this Petition be treated as a Petition under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent.

4. I have heard Mr. Jeejeebhoy, learned Counsel for the Petitioners at length.

5. But before proceeding further, I deem it apposite to set out Clause XVII of the Letters Patent as under:-

“17. Jurisdiction as to infants and lunatics : And We do further ordain that the said High Court of Judicature at Bombay shall have the like power and authority with respect to the persons and estates of infants, idiots and lunatics, within the Bombay Presidency, as that which was vested in the said High Court immediately, before the publication of these presents.”

6. As can be seen under Clause XVII of the Letters Patent, this Court has power and authority with respect to the person and estate of infants, idiots and lunatics within the Bombay presidency.

7. A Letters Patent is the Charter of the High Court ( Vinita M. Khanolkar Vs. Pragna M. Pai and Ors , [2.AIR 2002 SC 1357], Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar2). A Letters Patent is the specific law under which a High Court derives its powers ( Shah Babulal Khimji Vs Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. , [3.AIR 1981 SC 1786] ). It is not a subordinate piece of legislation. Further, it is settled law that until and unless a legislation specifically excludes the applicability of the Letters Patent, the Letters Patent is applicable i.e. it cannot be excluded by implication. Special law will always prevail over general law. A Letters Patent is a special law for the High Court and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the general law. That in the event of conflict between a special law and a general law, the special law will always prevail.

8. An “idiot” as per the Black’s Law Dictionary as referred to in clause XVII of the Letters Patent means a person who is afflicted with profound mental retardation.

9. Under the Mental Health Act, 1987 , which has since been repealed, there was a specific provision under Section 53 of the said Act empowering the District Court to appoint a legal guardian for a mentally ill person. Section 53 of the said repealed Mental Health Act, 1987 reads as under:-

“53. Appointment of guardian of mentally ill person.-(1) Where the mentally ill person is incapable of taking care of himself, the District Court or, where a direction has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 54, the Collector of the District, may appoint any suitable person to be his guardian.

(2) In the discharge of his functions under sub-section (1), the Collector shall be subject to the supervision and control of the State Government or of any authority appointed by it in that behalf.”

10. The Mental Health Act, 19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top