Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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