Court allows wife to sell off hubby's property to treat comatose spouse
CHENNAI: Holding that taking care of a person in a comatose condition is not that easy, and requires adequate funds, the Madras High Court appointed the wife of a person who is in a vegetative state as guardian of his property to deal with his immovable property for his medical expenses, setting aside the previous court order.
The HC permitted the wife to sell off the property on behalf of her husband and to arrange a sum of Rs 50 lakhs. The court further directed her to deposit the amount in a bank account of her husband maintained with a nationalised bank, with proceedings of selling her husband’s immovable property in Walltax Road, wrote a vacation bench of Justice
GR Swaminathan and Justice PB Balaji, disposing of a petition filed by the woman seeking rights to deal with her husband’s property.
The court said it is satisfied that unless the mentioned property is allowed to be dealt with, great hardship will be caused to them. The bench also directed the appellant that the interest from the deposited money should be withdrawn once in three months and the fixed deposit so created shall remain till the lifetime of her husband. After his demise, it will go in three equal shares in favour of his legal heirs (daughter and son) and the appellant, the court said. The litigant S Sasikala moved an appeal seeking to set aside a court order refusing to allow her to be appointed as the guardian of her husband, Sivakumar, who is in a coma.
The daughter and son of Sivakumar stated before the court that they have no objection to allowing their mother to be the guardian of their father’s properties.
“The appellant’s daughter struggled to control her emotions and indicated to the court that they are presently bereft of any means and that unless their mother is allowed to deal with the property, the family will be in dire straits,” wrote the bench. As the appellant is shouldering the entire burden of her husband’s medical expenses, the court refusing her petition on the ground that it is not maintainable is not right, wrote the bench.
The litigant S Sasikala moved an appeal seeking to set aside a court order refusing to allow her to be appointed as the guardian of her husband's property