Justice Swaminathan noted that such jurisdiction is akin to the parens patriae principle, which can be applied when no statutory remedy is available for patients in a comatose state.
Chennai: The Madras High Court permitted S. Sasikala, the wife of a comatose patient, to sell or mortgage her husband’s immovable property valued at over Rs 1 crore. The proceeds will be used to cover his medical expenses and support their family, which includes a son and a daughter.
A Division Bench composed of Justices G.R. Swaminathan and P.B. Balaji reversed an earlier decision by a single judge. The single judge had dismissed Sasikala’s writ petition on April 23, 2024, which sought to appoint her as the guardian of her husband, M. Sivakumar, who has been in a vegetative state since early 2024.
Sasikala initially approached the court to be appointed as her husband’s guardian, which would allow her to manage his bank accounts and, if necessary, sell or mortgage his property located on Walltax Road, adjacent to the Chennai Central Railway Station.
However, the single judge ruled that a writ petition was not the appropriate mechanism for appointing a guardian, especially since the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 does not address financial matters. He directed Sasikala to seek the appointment through a civil court.
Disagreeing with the single judge, the Division Bench invoked its writ jurisdiction, citing a similar case handled by the Kerala High Court. Justice Swaminathan noted that such jurisdiction is akin to the parens patriae principle, which can be applied when no statutory remedy is available for patients in a comatose state.
Justice Swaminathan, authoring the verdict, remarked:
“Caring for a person in a comatose state is not easy and requires substantial funds. The property in question belongs to Thiru. Sivakumar and must be used for his benefit. The state is not providing for him; the appellant bears the entire burden. Requiring the appellant to seek relief through a civil court is, in our opinion, inappropriate.”
READ ALSO: Additional CCTVs in EVM Rooms | Chief Electoral Officer Reports to Madras HC
The Division Bench, setting aside the single judge’s order, appointed Ms. Sasikala as her husband’s guardian and authorized her to manage his property, which the Bench estimated to be worth over ₹1 crore. They instructed her to allocate part of the proceeds to establish of Rs 50 lakh fixed deposit in Mr. Sivakumar’s name at a nationalized bank, with the quarterly interest to be withdrawn for his care.
“Upon his demise, the fixed deposit will be divided equally among his legal heirs: his wife, daughter, and son. This condition is for the family’s benefit, ensuring that at least their basic needs are met,” the judges concluded.
Case Title: S. Sasikala Vs. State
