Partly allowed

K.R.Thankamma Amma v. the Local Level Monitoring Committee (Kollam District)

Kerala HC24 Nov 2017WP(C)/24180/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court deleted the co-guardianship direction granting guardianship to the 4th respondent, allowing the 1st petitioner (mother) to be the sole guardian. The Court directed continuation of the Sub Registrar's order preventing alienation of the ward's property and dismissed all other relief.

What did the court decide?

Direction to delete the appointment of the 4th respondent as co-guardian; direction to continue the Sub Registrar's order preventing alienation of the 3rd petitioner's property.

K.R.Thankamma Amma Vs the Local Level… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 24180 of 2015 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.R.THANKAMMA AMMA, WIDOW OF LATE SRI.N.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AMBIKALAYAM, MUTHUPILAKKAD, PORUVAZHY.P.O.,SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM.

¶8

2. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, SON OF LATE SRI.N.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AMBIKALAYAM, MUTHUPILAKKAD, PORUVAZHY P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. 3. UDAYASREE A.S., DAUGHTER OF LATE SRI.N.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AMBIKALAYAM, MUTHUPILAKKAD, PORUVAZHY P.O.,SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.V.SURESH SRI.G.SUDHEER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (KOLLAM DISTRICT) UNDER THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSONS WITH AUTISM,CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES ACT, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶11

2. R.VENUGOPALAN, CONVENOR, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (KOLLAM DISTRICT) UNDER THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR WELFARE OF PERSONS WITH AUTISM, CEREBRAL PALSY, MENTAL RETARDATION AND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES ACT - 691 001.

¶12

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. SMT.JAYASREE, SREE HARI, MANAYILKULANGARA, KOLLAM - 691 001. R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 24180 of 2015 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.3936/76 DATED 07/10/1976 OF THE SASTHAMCOTTA SUB REGISTRY.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.4 OF 1994 DATED 20.1.1994 EXECUTED BY SIVARAMA PILLAI.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE ADMISSION REGISTER OF UDAYASREE.A.S. ISSUED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, J.M. HIGH SCHOOL, SASTHAMCOTTA.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS ID PROOF ISSUED BY THE ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER TO UDAYASREE.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ELECTORAL ROLLS.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P(C).NO.15020/2013 EXCEPT EXHIBITS DATED 28.6.2013.
EXT.P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM DATED 30.4.2013.
EXT.P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C).NO.15020/2013 DATED 23.7.2013 EXCEPT EXHIBITS.
EXT.P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY JAYASREE, PROPOSED GUARDIAN AND APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION TO APPOINT GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF UDAYASREE A.MENTALLY RETARDED WOMAN.
EXT.P11:	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30.6.2014 IN W.P.(C). NO.15020/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P12:	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G2.7804/2014/GMCH/TVPM DATED 2.8.2014 SENT BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXT.P13:	TRUE COPY OF THE CASE HISTORY ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P14:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL OPINION DATED 16.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P15:	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL OPINION (UNDATED) ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXT.P16:	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF LLC HEARING HELD ON 6.12.2014 AT DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S CHAMBER.

¶19

WP(C).No. 24180 of 2015 (V)

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.R4(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT	APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
EXT.R4(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE DURING	OBSERVATION MADE BY TH ELOCAL THE HOME VISIT OF 3RD PETITIONER
EXT.R4(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE 25.5.2013 OF THE	EXTRACT OF THE HEARING ON 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.R4(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCALA LEVEL COMM PETITIONER	COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ITTEE, KOLLAM DISTRICT TO THE 1ST
EXT.R4(E):	TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL	COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE BOARD, KOLLAM
EXT.R4(F):	TRUE COPY OF THE	MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
		TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶22

¶23

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 24180 of 2015 (V)

¶25

Dated: 24^th November, 2017

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court challenging

¶28

Ext.P16 order. The 1^st petitioner is the mother and the 2^nd and 3^rd petitioners as also the 4^th respondent are the

¶29

children. The dispute arose by reason of the 4^th respondent's complaint before the Local Level Committee (LLC) under the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 ('National Trust Act' for short). Various proceedings were taken, which, eventually ended in Ext.P16.

¶30

The LLC was approached for appointing a guardian for the 3^rd petitioner; who, the 4^th respondent claimed, was suffering from mental retardation. The father of the 3^rd petitioner had left her considerable

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 24180/2015

¶32

-2-

¶33

properties which the 2^nd petitioner was attempting to appropriate to himself was the allegation. A medical report was called for and the Medical Board of the Trivandrum Medical College had reported that the 3^rd petitioner was suffering from moderate retardation and had a disability of 75%. The petitioners have a submission that the report was made under threat and coercion. One need not go into that, since, it is a certificate issued by a properly constituted Medical Board.

¶34

This Court is now concerned with Ext.P16 order passed by the LLC. The LLC has granted the guardianship of the 3^rd petitioner to her mother the 1^st petitioner and the 4^th respondent as co-guardian. The said order suffers from an infirmity in not having noticed the fact that the 4^th respondent and the 1^st petitioner are not living together. The 3^rd petitioner is

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 24180/2015

¶36

-3-

¶37

now living with the 1^st petitioner and is in the exclusive custody of the mother. This Court had directed the presence of the petitioners, who were present before this Court on 17.11.2017. This Court had interacted with the 3^rd petitioner in the presence of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the 4^th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

The 3^rd respondent, though aged 53 years, is shy and withdrawn and lacks in social skills. Presumably this is due to the circumstances under which she grew up. It is admitted that, as a child, she was withdrawn and had been educated only up to 8^th standard. She can read and write and on a query made she responded that she reads the newspaper daily. The 3^rd petitioner is comfortable with her mother, who is old and ailing. The mother, in fact, submits that it is the 3^rd petitioner who tends to her and cooks for her.

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 24180/2015

¶40

-4-

¶41

In such circumstance, this Court does not find

¶42

any reason to disturb the 3^rd petitioner residing with her mother in the family property. The direction insofar as appointing the 4^th respondent as the co-guardian in Ext.P16 is deleted, since there is no such requirement, as of now. As to the report of the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, this Court would not go into that, since, the mother is appointed as the guardian. If at all, an application is to be filed at a later stage, then, the issue can be addressed at that point of time. Definitely, then, a separate medical examination would have to be conducted. The report of the Medical Board, now produced, would have no relevance at that stage and it is so declared.

¶43

As for the directions of the Sub Registrar, the same shall be continued and the undertaking of the petitioners that they would not alienate any property

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 24180/2015

¶45

-5-

¶46

belonging to the 3^rd petitioner is recorded.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

¶48

directions. No Costs.

¶49

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE