(PER FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The Petitioner, who is the wife of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy, has filed this Petition contending that her husband, who is aged 75 years, is suffering from Dementia. She has annexed to the Petition two Certificates dated 26th July 2023 and 8th August 2023 of Jagruti Rehabilitation Centre certifying that Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy is suffering from Dementia. The Certificate dated 8th August 2023 also states that Mr.Roy is undergoing treatment in Jagruti Rehabilitation Centre with the combination of medications and ongoing counselling to manage the effects of Dementia. He has 24 x 7 medical supervision. It is also stated that he is suffering forgetfulness, wandering, selfmuttering, poor hygiene, aggressive behaviour due to ‘severe’ grade of dementia. It is stated that currently he is able to walk by himself, eat food on his own but requires assistance for bathing and wearing clothes and that he has impaired memory, judgement and understanding.

4. The contention of the Petitioner is that she be appointed as the legal guardian of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy. The Petitioner contended that Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy, who is admitted at the Jagruti Rehabilitation Centre, could be examined there and his medical condition can be ascertained.

5. By an Order dated 29th January 2024, this Court had directed the Dean, J.J. Group of Hospitals, to constitute the appropriate Medical Board to examine the medical condition of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy by sending members of the Medical Board to Jagruti Rehabilitation Centre, where he is admitted, and place the report before this Court on or before the adjourned date of hearing.

6. By the said Order dated 29th January 2024, this Court had also granted leave to the Petitioner to amend the Petition and to implead the daughter and son of the Petitioner and Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy as party Respondents. This Court had also directed that their Affidavits be placed on record.

7. Pursuant to our Order, Respondent No.3, who is the daughter of the Petitioner and Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy, has filed an Affidavit dated 23rd February 2024 stating that she had no objection to the Petitioner being appointed as the lawful guardian of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy. Further, Respondent No.4, who is the son of the Petitioner and Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy, has also filed an Affidavit dated 24th February 2024 stating that he had no objection to the Petitioner being appointed as the lawful guardian of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy. Further, pursuant to our Order, the Medical Board appointed by the Dean, J.J.Group of Hospitals, has submitted a Report dated 15th February 2024, which reads as under:

“This is regarding the patient Ashok Kumar Roy, 76 year male. He was examined at Jagruti Rehabilitation Centre, Taloja on 15/02/24. He requires help for his daily activities. He has severe cognitive dysfunction. His vitals were stable during examination. He has been diagnosed to have Dementia.

On examination, this Board concludes that patient Ashok Kumar Roy is suffering from Dementia, and does not possess the cognitive faculties to take decisions. He requires constant nursing care.”

8. In the judgement passed by this Court in Mayuresh D. Nadkarni v/s. Union of India (Writ Petition(L) No.140 of 2024), this Court, after considering the law in that regard and also various judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts, including this Court, on the subject, and after discussing the doctrine of parens patriae, had appointed a legal guardian. Paragraph 20 of the said judgement reads as under:-

“20:- In the light of the above discussion, we see no harm in petitioner espousing the cause of his father in the present proceedings. There is no dispute on facts inasmuch as the Petitioner’s father has been certified by the medical board to be suffering from the Alzheimer disease. He is unable to function normally, he is completely dependent on others. It is the petitioner who is taking care of his father also due to the inability of the other members of the family. In these circumstances,, we are of the clear opinion that it is eminently in the interest of justice that the petitioner is appointed as a legal guardian of his father/ respondent no.5 The decisions as noted by us above are squarely applicable in the present case. The common thread which would run through these decisions is that the Court is not powerless to resolve such human problems and difficulties which would arise in regard to the property of such persons considering the medical condition they suffer. The law would thus come to the aid of such ailing person in managing his property by his next kith and kin by appointing a legal guardian.”

9. Having perused the Medical Report dated 15th February, 2024 issued by the Medical Board appointed by the Dean, J.J.Group of Hospitals, and the Affidavits filed by Respondent Nos.3 and 4, and relying upon our Judgement in Mayuresh D. Nadkarni (Supra), we are of the view that Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy’s medical condition is such that he is unable to take care of himself or handle his own affairs or assets, and, therefore, the Petitioner should be appointed as his legal guardian.

10. In these circumstances, we pass the following Orders:

a. The Petitioner shall be treated and accepted as legal guardian of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy.

b. All authorities should accept the status of the Petitioner as the legal guardian of Mr.Ashok Kumar Roy and allow her to operate his bank accounts and his movable and immovable properties, including the assets mentioned in the Petition.

c. Petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms.

d. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

e. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.