FIRST APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2019

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The first appeal was preferred by the original opponent against the order cancelling her appointment as guardian of her husband. The appellant was appointed guardian of her husband under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 by order dated 27 March 1980 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1977. The respondent, a nephew of the appellant's husband, filed an application under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 seeking cancellation of the guardianship order and direction to submit accounts. The trial court allowed the respondent's application. The appeal challenged this cancellation. The case was argued before the High Court of Bombay by counsel for both parties. The judgment was reserved on 16 January 2025 and pronounced on 17 April 2025. (Further details of the court's analysis and decision are not available in the provided text.)

Issue of Consideration

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2019

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • Indian Lunacy Act
  • 1912
  • Section 62 appointment of guardian
  • Mental Health Act
  • 1987
  • Section 65 cancellation of guardianship
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 84

First Appeal No. 1272 of 2019

2025-04-17

Gauri Godse, J.

2025:BHC-AS:17468

Mr. I. M. Khairdi for the Appellant, Mr. Niranjan Shimpi for the Respondent

Shivamma Shankar Wale

Ramesh Virpakshappa Wale

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against cancellation of guardianship order

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the impugned order cancelling her guardianship and to restore her appointment as guardian of her husband.

Filing Reason

The trial court allowed the respondent's application under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 cancelling the guardianship order dated 27 March 1980.

Previous Decisions

On 27 March 1980, the appellant was appointed guardian of her husband Shivshankar Wale under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1977. Subsequently, the respondent's application for cancellation was allowed by the impugned order.

Judgment Excerpts

This first appeal is preferred by the original opponent to challenge the cancellation of the Order appointing her as a guardian of her husband under the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 (“Lunacy Act”). By order dated 27th March 1980, the appellant’s Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1977 filed under Section 62 of the Lunacy Act was allowed, and the appellant was appointed as guardian of her husband Shivshankar Wale (“Shivshankar”). The respondent filed an application under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (“the 1987 Act”) for cancelling the guardianship order issued in the appellant's name and prayed for directing the appellant to submit accounts of the properties of Shivshankar.

Procedural History

The appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 1977 under Section 62 of the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912 for appointment as guardian of her husband Shivshankar Wale. By order dated 27 March 1980, the application was allowed and she was appointed guardian. Subsequently, the respondent (nephew of Shivshankar) filed an application under Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 seeking cancellation of the guardianship order and direction to submit accounts. The trial court allowed the respondent's application. The appellant then preferred the present first appeal before the High Court, which was reserved for judgment on 16 January 2025 and pronounced on 17 April 2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Lunacy Act, 1912: Section 62
  • Mental Health Act, 1987: Section 65
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court FIRST APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2019
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Appeal Against Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case — Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Not Rebutted by Accused Who Did Not Enter Witness Box. Acquittal Set Aside as Perverse; Accused Convicted and Fined ₹2,50,...