Bombay High Court

SUPRABHA PRAKASH SALVIversusPRAKASH ANANDA SALVI AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The petition is allowed and the order of the District Judge dated 22.10.2018 is quashed.

Summary

The petitioner, Suprabha Prakash Salvi, filed a writ petition seeking appointment as guardian of her disabled brother Sagar Prakash Salvi after the District Judge rejected her application. The petitioner asserted that the father (respondent No.1) owned no immovable or inheritable property, and she would not misuse a guardianship certificate. The court examined Sections 50‑53 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 1987, which govern guardianship where a mentally ill person possesses property, and noted that the proceedings began before the 2017 Act came into force. An affidavit confirming the father's lack of property was filed, leading the court to conclude that a guardianship certificate was unnecessary and the district judge’s order was erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and any pending civil applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a guardian can be appointed under Sections 50‑53 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 1987 when the mentally ill person has no immovable or inheritable property.
Whether the District Judge erred in rejecting the petition for guardianship of the disabled brother.
Whether the affidavit filed by the petitioner suffices to set aside the district court's order.

Legislation cited

Mental Healthcare Act, 1987 — s. 50, 51, 52, 53

Subjects

guardianship
mentally disabled
Mental Healthcare Act
property
affidavit
writ petition
district court order

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12813
1 WP 6629-2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6629 OF 2019

SUPRABHA PRAKASH SALVI
VERSUS
PRAKASH ANANDA SALVI AND ANOTHER

…
Mr. N.B. Narwade – Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Zambare – Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent No.2, State
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.03.2026

ORDER:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for

respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.2, State.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2018 passed

by the learned District Judge-7, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Application

No.300 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner

seeking her appointment as guardian of her disabled brother, namely

Sagar Prakash Salvi, came to be rejected.

3. This Court, vide order dated 25.06.2019, recorded observations in

paragraphs 4 to 6, which read thus :

“4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has categorically
stated that respondent No.1 does not have any landed property or
any such movable properties to which the petitioner and her
2 WP 6629-2019.odt

special brother Sagar could lay a claim for inheritance. He submits
on instructions that the petitioner would not utilize the
guardianship certificate for any purpose and would also not utilize
the same for stalling her transfer, which is a normal incidence of
her service. She is working as a Nurse in the Health Department
and is presently deployed at Ahmednagar. A specific affidavit of
the petitioner is also tendered across the bar, dated 20/06/2019,
which is marked as Exhibit “X” for identification.

5. The learned AGP submits that Sections 50 to 53 of the
Mental Healthcare Act, 1987, which is applicable to the case of
the petitioner as the proceedings were initiated on 12/12/2017
and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was introduced by the
Central Government, published in the Official Gazette dated
02/01/2018 and brought into effect from 07/07/2018, would
indicate that if a mentally ill person has a landed property and if
such a person is incapable of taking care of himself and managing
his property, a guardian could be appointed u/s 52 r/w Section
53.

6. As in the instant case, there is an admission that there is no
immovable property with respondent No.1, father. Such a
guardianship certificate therefore may not be necessary. He,
however, submits that it would be appropriate to direct
respondent No.1 to file an affidavit that he does not have any
landed property or such properties which Sagar could inheritate
or which would require a Manager keeping in view that the
impugned order does not indicate any statement made by
respondent No.1 father of the petitioner and Sagar.”

4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 20.06.2019

stating that respondent No.1 (father) does not possess any immovable or

inheritable property. This Court had accordingly directed respondent

No.1 to file an affidavit to that effect.
3 WP 6629-2019.odt

5. In view of the affidavit now placed on record, this Court is inclined

to allow the present petition by setting aside the impugned order.

6. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2018 passed by

the learned District Judge-7, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Application

No.300 of 2017 is quashed and set aside.

7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE

Pooja Kale/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…