Dismissed¶¶22

Kaushal S/O Shirish Kunjir Thr U/G Yogini W.O Shirish Kunjir v. the State of Maharashtra

Mental Health Act, 1987 – repeal

Bombay HC6 Feb 2025FA/1772/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First Appeal No. 1772 of 2024; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Shailesh P. Brahme, J.; decided 24.06.2025; Sec. 53 Mental Health Act; Sec. 58 and 59 Mental Health Act; Sec. 126(1) repeal of Mental Health Act 1987 (14 of 1987); guardianship application maintainability; District Judge Ahmednagar; permission to sell land of intellectually disabled son (75% permanent disability); gut no. 81/3; agreement of sale 24.03.2023; appeal dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted on merits; liberty reserved to the appellant to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law. ¶¶22

Kaushal S/O Shirish Kunjir Thr U/G Yogini W.O Shirish Kunjir vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted on merits; liberty reserved to the appellant to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant's application under Sec. 53 of the Mental Health Act for appointment of guardian and permission to sell the land was maintainable before the District Court after repeal of the Mental Health Act, 1987, and consequently whether the first appeal survives.

¶¶21

Court's answer

The Mental Health Act of 1987 (14 of 1987) stands repealed with effect from 29.05.2018 by Sec. 126(1).

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

The repealing enactment contains no provision for making an application before the District Court for appointment of guardian or manager; therefore the entire exercise undertaken by the District Judge was futile.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

The application filed by the appellant before the District Court was not maintainable, and accordingly the first appeal was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the appellant to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mental Health Act, 1987 — repeal — maintainability. Mother of a person suffering from moderate intellectual disability (75% permanent disability) had applied under Sec. 53 of the Mental Health Act to the District Judge, Ahmednagar for appointment of guardian and permission to sell the son's agricultural land (Gut No. 81/3); application rejected by order dated 28.08.2023. Holding in first appeal: the Mental Health Act of 1987 (14 of 1987) was repealed on 29.05.2018 by Sec. 126(1); the repealing enactment has no provision for making an application before the District Court for appointment of guardian or manager; the application before the District Court was therefore not maintainable and the exercise before the District Judge was futile. First appeal dismissed, with liberty to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law. Merits of the request for sale of property not examined.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:15888

¶2

1 fa 1772.24

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2024

¶5

Kaushal S/o Shirish Kunjir Since mentally ill through his natural guardian mother Smt. Yogini Shirish Kunjir .. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶8

Shri Rajendra S. Kasar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri D. B. Bhange, A.G.P. for the Respondent.

¶9

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

¶10

CLOSED FOR ORDER ON : 09.06.2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24.06.2025

¶11

FINAL ORDER :

¶12

. Heard Mr. Rajendra Kasar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri D. B. Bhange, learned A. G. P. for the respondent/State finally at the admission stage.

¶13

Appellant is assailing order dated 28.08.2023 passed in Civil Enquiry Application No. 66 of 2024 by the learned District Judge, Ahmednagar, rejecting application U/Sec. 53 of the Mental Health Act (hereinafter referred as to the ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity) for appointment of guardian and refusing permission to sell the land belonging to her mentally retarded son.

¶14

2 fa 1772.24

¶15

Appellant is looking after her son, who is suffering from moderate intellectual disability (mental retardation), which is 75% permanent disability. She lost her husband in covid. The agricultural land bearing gut No. 81/3 devolves upon mentally ill son, which needs to be sold for various reasons viz to meet the expenses for his medical treatment, educational expenses and to repay loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is contended that appellant was unable to cultivate the land in question and, therefore, being mother she has entered into an agreement of sell on 24.03.2023 and consideration is fixed at Rs. 23,75,000/-. It is her case that in the interest of son permission to sell the land needs to be granted.

¶16

Appellant produced on record disability certificate, certificate of the concern school, account statement of financial institution, medical bills, death certificate of her husband and the revenue record of the land in question. Learned District Judge by impugned order rejected application mainly on the ground that Sec. 53 of the Act does not refer to sell of the property. It is further held that for want of better particulars, it was not possible for the Court to examine need or welfare of disabled person.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is nothing on record to doubt the requirement of the appellant to alienate the land. It is contended that under very compelling

¶18

3 fa 1772.24

¶19

circumstances permission is solicited to sell the land. It is further submitted that learned Judge overlooked provisions of Sec. 58 and 59 of the Act.

¶20

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent supports the impugned order.

¶21

Appellant submitted Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 66 of 2023 U/Sec. 53 of the Act on 11.04.2023 before the District Judge Ahmednagar. The Mental Health Act of 1987 (14 of 1987) was repealed on 29.05.2018 by Sec. 126(1). In that view of the matter application filed by the appellant before the District Court was not maintainable. The repelling act does not have any provision of making application before the District Court for appointment of guardian or manager. Therefore, whole exercise undertaken by the District Judge is futile. Appeal is liable to be dismissed, as the application is not maintainable.

¶22

For the reasons recorded above, the first appeal is dismissed. However, it would be open for the appellant to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law.

¶23

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

¶24

bsb/June 25

Kaushal S/O Shirish Kunjir Thr U/G Yogini W.O Shirish Kunjir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal S/O Shirish Kunjir Thr U/G Yogini W.O Shirish Kunjir v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Kolhapur vs Suman Rajaram Avachari and Ors.

Mohiuddin Hussiouddin Lrs Bilaquesbegum and Others vs Muthuappa Bhauappa Shiwale L.Rs. Kusumbai L.Rs. Shivdas and Others

Mohiuddin Hussiouddin Lrs Bilaquesbegum and Others vs Muthuappa Bhauappa Shiwale L.Rs. Kusumbai L.Rs. Shivdas and Others

Pandurang Rajendra Kale vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mrs. Rashmi Abhay Kulkarni vs Abhay S/O Ravindra Kulkarni

Balbhim Samrao Gumare Died Thr Lrs Kamalbai Balbhim Ghumare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Beed and Anr.