Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Kerala High Court Invokes Parens Patriae Doctrine, Grants Custody of Autistic Ward to Mother

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered on 10th July 2023, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam exercised its powers under the parens patriae doctrine and granted custody of an autistic ward to the mother. The case, WP(CRL.) No. 296 of 2023, involved petitioner Santha Kumari, aged 63 years, who sought custody of her 39-year-old autistic daughter after the demise of her husband, who was previously appointed as the ward's guardian under the National Trust Act.

The court, comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, carefully analyzed Sections 10 and 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation, and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. The Act aims to establish a National Trust for the welfare of persons with disabilities and provides for guardianship in specific situations.

The court took into consideration the present health condition of the ward, who required round-the-clock care and was unaware of her father's demise. Previously, the ward was placed under the care of the Grace Home Charitable Society, a registered institution for persons with disabilities.

While the District Administration and the Grama Panchayat initially hesitated to hand over custody, they later expressed no objection to entrusting the ward's custody to the petitioner, subject to the court's assurance that proper care and protection would be provided. The court directed the petitioner to file an affidavit confirming her capability to care for the ward, which she duly presented.

The affidavit revealed that the petitioner, Santha Kumari, possessed sufficient assets, including property and fixed deposits, and had a stable income through a small business and selling vegetables and coconuts. Her eldest daughter, Mrs. Prasanthi, also affirmed her willingness to help care for the ward. Based on this evidence, the court was convinced that the petitioner could provide the necessary care and protection required by the ward.

The court emphasized the exceptional nature of the case, wherein it invoked the parens patriae doctrine, granting the custody of the autistic ward to her mother. The doctrine allows the court to act as a guardian in extraordinary situations to protect the welfare and best interests of the concerned individual.

 This landmark judgment sets a precedent for similar cases, reaffirming the constitutional court's authority to act in the best interests of those unable to protect themselves fully. The decision is expected to have a significant impact on guardianship cases involving persons with disabilities, ensuring their well-being and care in appropriate family environments.

The judgment cites, "In the said view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the petitioner would be in a position to take care of the ward properly, and the entrustment of the custody of the ward to the petitioner will not, in any manner, impair the welfare of the ward. We take this view also for the reason that the petitioner is none other than the mother of the ward, and no one else can give to the ward all that a mother can give to her."

This decision reflects the High Court's commitment to uphold the rights and welfare of persons with disabilities, ensuring their protection and inclusion in society.

Date of Decision: 10th July 2023

SANTHA KUMARI vs STATE OF KERALA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Santha_Vs_State_10July23_Kerl^.pdf"]

Latest Legal News