J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran,J The appellants are some of the respondents before the 6th Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The original petition was filed before the lower court by the 1st respondent seeking appointment of himself as the guardian of his wife and the manager of her properties. The appellants and the respondents 2 to 4 are the siblings of the wife of the 1st respondent. The wife of the 1st respondent will be referred to as ‘the subject’ and the others from their status in the original petition.

2. The petitioner was married to the subject on 24.8.1996, and they have a girl child in the marriage. It was contended by the petitioner that after marriage, his wife showed symptoms of abnormal behavior and was subjected to psychological treatment and she was diagnosed with 'paranoid schizophrenia'. He also alleged that it was a pre-marital condition and that the respondents were aware of her mental condition. The subject had to be in continuous supervision and also administered medicines, failing which, her mental condition would relapse. It was admitted that the subject was working in a private limited company and that, often, she does not have the power to convey what she wants and shows no feeling towards her husband or even her daughter. The subject required compulsion not only in taking medicine but also in consuming food and to carry on her personal affairs.

3. The subject was alleged to have interest in three items of properties, of which, the scheduled items were 1 and 2. Item No.1 was under her absolute ownership, purchased when she was a minor and in item no.2, she had 1/8th share. It was also asserted that she had a share in a property in Bangalore, the details of which were not known to the petitioner. It was alleged that the 7th respondent had got a power of attorney executed in the year 1999, and so did the respondents 1 and 5, who together are attempting to dispose of the scheduled properties. The power of attorney was alleged to be executed on coercion, to which the subject succumbed due to her mental condition.

4. The respondents 1 and 6 remained ex-parte, respondents 2 and 5 jointly filed a counter, so did the 4th and 7th respondents and the 3rd respondent, a separate counter. The respondents, other than the 3rd respondent, alleged that the petition was pre-mature and legally unsustainable; being one filed under S.52 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. The respondents denied that the subject was mentally ill and projected her employment in a multinational company to be against the said allegation. However, they admitted that their sister was under medication for depression and also alleged that the petitioner is mentally ill and not capable of being appointed as a guardian of his wife. The 7th respondent admitted the execution of the power of attorney by the subject in his favor. But, he asserted no intention to dispose of the property. The 3rd respondent admitted her sister's ailment and also contended that, while the subject was admitted in the hospital, she was looking after the child. The 3rd respondent sailed along with the petitioner, endorsing the claim raised by him and asserted that the petitioner is the apt person to be appointed as guardian.

5. The learned Judge examined the evidence in its entirety and found that the subject was mentally ill, but that she could live as an usefull member of the society if she is constantly supervised and administered medicines. The learned Judge found the subject to be capable of looking after her personal affairs, after going through the inquisition carried out by the earlier incumbent in the District Court and also his own interaction with her. However, on the aspect of capability to look after her properties, the court below found the subject to be incapable and often succumbing to pressures. It was on the above finding that the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner to appoint him as a guardian of the subject, but allowed the prayer for