LAWS(MAD)-2022-1-10

C. RAGHURAMAN Vs. STATE

Decided On January 27, 2022
C. Raghuraman Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Registry earlier had raised a maintainability issue with regard to the maintainability of the present petition which has been filed seeking to appoint the petitioner as a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person. The maintainability issue was raised by the Registry by relying upon a judgment of this Court in the case of G. Nithyanandam vs. Tmt. D. Saritha and others reported in 2013 3 LW412, wherein, an application filed for appointment of a legal guardian for a mentally retarded person was heard. In the said decision, the learned Single Judge had directed the petitioner to approach the District Collector under Sec. 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. Earlier there was the Mental Health Act, 1987 and under the said Act, Sec. 53 enabled a person to get himself appointed as guardian for a mentally ill person by approaching the concerned District Court. However, the Mental Health Act, 1987 got repealed in the year 2017 and it was replaced by a new enactment by name "The Mental Health care Act, 2017" which came into effect from 7/7/2018.

(2.) In the decision of the learned Single Judge reported in 2013 3 LW 412 referred to supra, the petition was filed under Ss. 3,7 to 10 and 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Since the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 does not deal with mentally retarded persons or lunatics, the learned Single Judge held the petition filed by G.Nithyanandam in the decision referred to supra (G. Nithyanandam's case) as not maintainable and directed the said petitioner to approach the concerned statutory authority under Sec. 14 of the National Trust for Welfare of persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.

(3.) Ever since the passing of the aforesaid decision by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the Registry of this Court was not entertaining any petitions filed seeking for appointment of legal guardianship for a mentally retarded person or a lunatic.