MUMBAI: Bombay HC has appointed a 77-year-old woman as the legal guardian of her 79-year-old sister, who has severe dementia and is in a completely incapacitated state. They have homes in a Jogeshwari residential enclave.
Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Neela Gokhale allowed the petition of the younger sister—N—declaring and appointing her as the guardian “of the person and property of her sister (Z)”. They authorised her to manage, dispose of, or deal with Z’s movable properties, and directed “authorities to accept her status as the petitioner for all purposes in respect of all her assets”.
N’s petition said Z is a widow without children and has been suffering from dementia since Jan 2020. Her husband died in Sept 2024 without a will, leaving her as his sole legal heir. Both have several investments, including fixed deposits, RBI bonds, equity shares, mutual funds and money in their bank accounts. The balance in the bank accounts Z held jointly with her husband is used for payments, including expenses, staff salaries and maintenance bills. The petition said it has become impossible to operate these accounts due to her deteriorating medical condition, adding that “Z’s condition has led to a state of impasse”. It said current laws of guardianship in India are either meant for mentally challenged persons or minors. “She is currently incapacitated by virtue of her illness, which is related to her advancing age.”
On Dec 19, 2024, HC had directed JJ Hospital to set up a medical board to examine Z. The board’s Jan 13 report said, “She suffers from a major neurocognitive decline which is impairing her activities of daily living.” It also confirmed N’s claim that “she is unable to take any major financial decision independently and cannot provide informed consent”.
N’s advocate, Chirag Mody, said her two brothers, aged 81 and 83, who stay in the same enclave, have no objection to her appointment as Z’s legal guardian. Their affidavits said “except the petitioner and themselves, there is no other family member to care for Z”. “Nevertheless, to satisfy ourselves”, the bench directed the brothers to remain present. It interacted with them, ascertained the veracity of the statements made, and were “satisfied that these respondents understood the connotations of the petition and their consent to the same”.
Considering the legal and factual position, particularly the medical board’s report, the judges had “no hesitation” in granting the relief that N had sought. They appointed her as the legal guardian of Z and her movable properties, subject to conditions. It included that N can draw on the accounts held in Z’s name “but only for the purpose of meeting her needs”. She cannot effect transfers, gifts or distributions to herself or any other family members, “save and except for the needs of Z as permitted… without prior leave of the court”.
