Date of Judgment:
16th March 2022
Bench:
G.S. Patel, J.
Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Parties:
Petitioner – Sonia Fazal Khan & Ors.
Respondents – Union of India & Anr.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has held that until the parents are alive, a son has no right, title, or enforceable share in their residential flat. The Court held this while deciding on the matter posed before them by the petitioner who wished to be appointed the legal guardian of her husband's property, even though he had been in a vegetative state for a long time.
Legal Provisions
Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 226 – states that Every High Court shall have the authority to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs of mandamus, to any person or authority, including, in appropriate cases, any Government, within the territories over which it has jurisdiction.
BRIEF OVERVIEW
- In this instant petition, the petitioner pleaded before the court that since her husband was in an irreversible vegetative state and is a patient of dementia, the Court may appoint his legal wife (1st petitioner) as the guardian of Fazal’s personal and property.
- The son of Fazal Ali interrupted the proceedings to claim that he has been the de facto guardian for many years and further claimed that even though both their parents are alive, he has an enforceable legal title to both the contentious residential homes, reasoning that the same contentious property is a “shared home”.
- Likewise, the court evaluated the medical condition of the father’s (Fazal’s) condition and the attested medical reports indicated that he had dementia due to a multi-infarct state which dated back to 2011, additionally he has pneumonitis, bedsores and he is bedridden.
- Furthermore, the court evaluated assets as well as bank accounts named after Fazal Ali and observed that there is no basis for applicant Fazal Khan to claim that he is the “de facto” guardian of Fazal for many years. Further the submission made by the applicant has no evidentiary proof to show that he has been taking care of his father (Fazal). Also no receipts were produced before the court to substantiate medical/household expenses.
- Subsequently the court observed that the applicant has resorted to the proceedings under the provisions of domestic violence which is the result of being ill-advised and the claim made is not sustainable because the applicant was never a part of the domestic setup.
- Thus, the Hon’ble Court rejected this application on the grounds of illogical and arbitrary claims.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether a son can claim right or share in parent’s residential flats while they are alive?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble High Court stated that as his parents are alive, the son has no right, title, or involvement in either of these flats, further the court said that under any inheritance law a son cannot claim a share in the contested property when the parents are alive, also the fact that the applicant is their son that does not enable him to contest that either or both of the flats are ‘shared household’.
- The Court further stated that the court is not seeking the intervention by the applicant(Asif) and the arguments posed before the bench is ill-researched, utterly heartless, and has no legal merits to consider the same, additionally, the applicant has evidentiary documents to show that he was taking care of bedridden father(Fazal) thus dismissing his interim application.
- The Hon’ble Court further held that in the wife's application for guardianship, there was no specific clause tackling the issue of custodianship of a handicapped person. The Division Bench, on the other hand, chose to treat the wife as if he were a minor with an interest in immovable property.
- Additionally, the Hon’ble Court permitted the wife (1st petitioner) to open discussion for any potential buyer and to surmise agreements on a price and terms, but not to execute an MoU or a sale agreement without the permission of this Court that the leave must be obtained through the submission of a proper Interim Application.
- Thus the Hon’ble High Court ruled the petition to be pending and at the discretion of the petitioners to apply.
CONCLUSION
Withholding the petition the court rejected the claims made by the applicant(Asif) and granted permission to the (1st petitioner) to manage the bank accounts of her husband as a joint holder of the same also for the sale of the property the bench conditioned that after the sale of the contentious property the proceeds will go towards the treatment of her bedridden husband.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
