- (1.) Challenge in this Appeal is made to the order passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Vadodara dated 11.04.2012 below Miscellaneous Civil Application No.79 of 2001. By the impugned order, the District Court has, under the provision of Section 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 ('the Act' for short), appointed the Superintendent of Mental Hospital, Vadodara, as the Guardian of Kum. Shraddhaben M. Majmudar, who is a mentally ill person and who is looked after there since more than two decades. By the said order, the District Court has, under the provision of Section 54 of the Act, appointed Shri V.S.Desai as the Manager of all and any property of the said person Kum. Shraddhaben M. Majmudar. It is this second part of the order which has aggrieved the appellant.
(2.) Relevant facts as emerging from the record are as under. 2.1 The person in question is Kum. Shraddhaben M. Majmudar. At present, she is about 75 years of age. She is an extra ordinarily qualified bachelor lady, having educational qualification of Post Graduation and Doctorate. 2.2 She is mentally ill and is incapable of taking care of her person and also of her property. No relative / family member has taken care of her person and that is how she is in mental hospital at Vadodara since 27.09.1994 as an indoor patient. 2.3 The District Court had, before passing the impugned order as noted above, already framed the issues as required under Section 51 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 and had answered them vide order dated 11.01.2002 by holding that (i) the said person is a mentally ill person, and (ii) she is incapable of taking care of herself and of managing her property. The requirement of Section 51 of the said Act has thus already been complied with way-back, in the year 2002. The same was done by the District Court on the basis of the material on record, including the medical evidence. 2.4 It is Mr.V.S.Desai who has managed to get her admitted and treated at the Mental Hospital at Vadodara and it is he, who has taken care of her person and property so far, who is appointed as the Manager by the District Court by the impugned order, which is questioned by one of the relatives before this Court. 2.5 The District Court has, before appointing Mr.Desai as the Manager, also explored the possibility of appointing the Collector as the Manager for this purpose, that too at the instance and insistence of Mr.Desai himself, but there is material on record which suggests that the Collector was not ready for this and the District Court has also, after some efforts, given up that option and it is Mr.Desai who is found to be most appropriate person by the District Court for this purpose. It is noted that, there is no quarrel on the point that, no relative is ready to take care of that person and there is no challenge to that part of the order by which the Superintendent of Mental Hospital is appointed as the Guardian of that person. As a matter of fact, since more than two decades that person is taken care of by the said hospital only. It is only manging her properties, which is the point of contest in this Appeal.
(3.) 3.1 It is noted that, while the matter was listed for final hearing before this Court, though time was asked for more than once on behalf of the appellant, no one has remained present before this Court. Mr.A.R.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant has, at the time of final hearing, withdrawn his appearance. Subsequently, though appearance of Mr.B.M.Mangukia, learned advocate is shown for the appellant, at the time of hearing of the matter, no submission is made on his behalf on the ground that he does not have any instruction in the matter. 3.2 It is also noted that, this Court had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the appellant when he had personally remained present before this Court to request for some time to make some arrangement. (Reference can be made to the proceedings dated 01.07.2015). It was less to get ready for the matter, more to delay the final adjudication.;