Final Order 15

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
NEW DELHI DISTRICT: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
G. P. No. 08/2024
Smt. Rajeshwari
W/o Late Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian
R/o A-47, Kanak Durga Colony
Sector-12, R. K. Puram
New Delhi-110022.
…...Petitioner.
Vs
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Block-B, Sector-13, R. K. Puram
New Delhi-110022.
2. Mani Kandan
S/o Late Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian
R/o CN-2A, 47, Kanak Durga Colony
Sector-12, R. K. Puram
New Delhi.
Presently residing at:-
53/A, Chinnamariyamman Kovil Street,
Panamarthupatti, Selam-204
Tamil Nadu.
3. Resident Commissioner,
Government of Tamil Nadu House,
9, Bir Tikendrajit Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi-110021
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 1 of 13
-- 1 of 13 --
(In respect of “M. Subranian s/o Late Muthu
Swami, ID Card No.0211 working as Gardner)
…..Respondents
Date of Institution : 24.07.2024
Date of Arguments : 07.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 07.11.2025
APPEARANCES
Sh. N. K. Paswan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner
Petitioner with her daughter Arti @ Aarthi S.
Sh. Akshay Sahay, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3.
J U D G M E N T
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 by petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari w/o
Late Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian seeking appointment as
guardian of her daughter Ms.Arti @ Arthi (hereinafter referred to as
‘subject person’) and for grant of ‘Guardianship Certificate’ for taking
legal decision and to act on her behalf and also to apply for release of
all the service benefits of deceased Sh.M. Subramaniam @
Subramanian who was serving as Gardner with Government of Tamil
Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi vide ID Card bearing No.0211.
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 2 of 13
-- 2 of 13 --
2. The relevant facts of the matter are that petitioner Smt.
Rajeshwari was married to Late Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian,
who expired on 26.05.2013 leaving behind wife (the petitioner),
daughter namely Ms. Arti @ Arthi, aged about 29 years, who is a
disabled person and a son namely Mani Kandan, (respondent no.2 in
the present petition). The subject person Ms.Arti is suffering from 70
% Intellectual disability of brain. Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian
s/o Muthu Swami was working as a Gardner with Government of
Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, who expired on 26.05.2013. Sh.M.
Subramaniam @ Subramanian during his service / life time in his
service record mentioned the name of his daughter / subject person Ms.
Arti @ Arthi as his nominee.
3. After the death of Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian,
Ms. Arti @ Arthi is under the care and custody of petitioner / mother.
Respondent no.2 is a married person and residing along with his wife
and children far away from the petitioner and Ms.Arti @ Arthi. It is
stated that respondent no.2 have no objection if the Guardianship
certificate is issued in favour of petitioner / mother.
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 3 of 13
-- 3 of 13 --
4. It is stated that daughter of petitioner Ms. Arti @ Aarthi
being 70 % disabled person would not be able to get released the
service benefits of her deceased father who was serving as a Gardner.
Petitioner being one of the class -I legal heir approached the concerned
officials of Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu to get released all
the service benefits of her deceased husband. However, the concerned
officials of Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, informed
that Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian has appointed Ms. Arti @
Arthi as his nominee in his service record, hence they are unable to
release all the service benefits in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the
petitioner is approaching this court for issuing the Guardianship
Certificate as per Section 14 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act 2016 read with Section 151 CPC 1908 seeking guardianship
certificate for taking legal decision and to act on behalf of Ms.Arti and
also to apply for releasing all the service benefits of deceased Sh.M.
Subramaniam @ Subramanian who was serving as Gardner with
Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi vide ID
Card bearing No.0211.
5. Notice of the present petition was issued to the respondent
no.2 and respondent no.3. Respondent no.2 being brother of subject
person Arti @ Arthi, vide his statement dated 11.09.2024 has given no
objection. Respondent no.2 has specifically stated that he has no
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 4 of 13
-- 4 of 13 --
objection if Guardianship Certificate in respect of his sister namely
Aarti (aged about 29 years) is issued in the name of his mother
(petitioner herein).
6. Reply has also been filed on behalf of Respondent no.3/ M.
L. Mani Kandan, Under Secretary to Government (Legal Cell), Tamil
Nadu House, New Delhi-110021 wherein it is mentioned that M.
Subramaian (Late), then Gardner, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi in his
letter dated 10.01.2013 had specifically requested this office to replace
the nominee name from his wife Smt. Rajeshwari to that of his
daughter Ms. Arthi (Mentally Challenged), as his wife had deserted
him for more than 10 years and had since remarried. Copy of the said
letter has also been placed on record. It is further contended in the reply
that one V. Elangovan in his letter dated 05.03.2014 had claimed
guardianship over Ms. Arthi stating that he is maternal uncle of
Ms.Arthi and that Ms. Arthi was under his protection and he was taking
care of her in his house.
7. Vide order 25.08.2025, court had issued notice to Sh.V.
Elangovan for appearance before this court in view of. On 17.09.2025,
Sh. V. Elangovan appeared before the court and has given the
following statement:-
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 5 of 13
-- 5 of 13 --
I am the maternal uncle of the subject person Ms. Aarti @
Arthi S., daughter of Late Sh. M. Subramanian. I have
been shown the original letter dated 05.03.2014 produced
by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.3 (copy of the same is
retained) written in Tamil language (translated version is
also on the record) but I have to state that the said letter
was signed by me but I was not knowing the contents
thereof. I was not knowing Tamil language. I was asked to
sign this letter and therefore I signed it.
I know the subject person Ms. Aarti @ Arthi S., being the
daughter of Sh. M. Subramanian, who was my brother-in-
law. He passed away on 26.05.2013. The subject person
Ms. Aarti @ Arthi S., resided with me for a period of one
month. Thereafter, mother of Ms. Aarti @ Arthi S., came
and took her custody from me.
I have no objection if the present petition is allowed and
retiremental benefits of deceased M. Subramaniam are
released in favour of the subject person Ms. Aarti @ Arthi
S., through her guardian/mother Rajeshwari.
To my knowledge, Rajeshwari has not remarried and she
is taking care of her daughter i.e. subject person Ms. Aarti
@ Arthi S.
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 6 of 13
-- 6 of 13 --
8. On the directions of the court, truthfulness of the certificate
of disability of Ms. Arti @ Arthi was verified and Dr. K. S.
Ravishankar, Head of Department, Department of Psychiatry,
Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital,
Salem, in his letter dated 08.08.2025 has mentioned that nature of
disability of patient Arti @ Arthi is permanent and percentage of
disability is seventy per cent.
9. The petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari in order to prove her case,
entered into the witness box as PW-1 and deposed on affidavit Ex.PW-
1/5. She testified on oath about all the averments made by her in the
petition and has proved on record copy of birth certificate of Ms.Arti @
Arthi dated 03.12.2018 as Ex.PW1/1, copy of disability certificate
Ms.Arti @ Arthi, Registration no. 12283866 issued from Medical
College Hospital, District Salem as Ex.PW1/2, copy of death certificate
of Sh.M. Subramaniam @ Subramanian as Ex.PW1/3, guardianship
petition as Ex.PW1/4, copy of Aadhar card of Ms.Rajeshwari as
Ex.PW1/6 and copy of employment I-card of Sh.M. Subramanian as
mark B.
10. Thereafter, petitioner closed her evidence.
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 7 of 13
-- 7 of 13 --
11. I have heard Sh. N. K. Paswan, Ld. Counsel for petitioner as
well as Sh. Akshay Sahay, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3. I have also
given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case,
pleadings, evidence and to the material available on record.
12. The relevant statutory provision of Section 14 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 reads as under:-
14. Provision for guardianship.—(1) Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, on and from the date of commencement of this Act,
where a district court or any designated authority, as
notified by the State Government, finds that a person with
disability, who had been provided adequate and
appropriate support but is unable to take legally binding
decisions, may be provided further support of a limited
guardian to take legally binding decisions on his behalf in
consultation with such person, in such manner, as may be
prescribed by the State Government: Provided that the
District Court or the designated authority, as the case may
be, may grant total support to the person with disability
requiring such support or where the limited guardianship
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 8 of 13
-- 8 of 13 --
is to be granted repeatedly, in which case, the decision
regarding the support to be provided shall be reviewed by
the Court or the designated authority, as the case may be,
to determine the nature and manner of support to be
provided. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-
section, “limited guardianship” means a system of joint
decision which operates on mutual understanding and
trust between the guardian and the person with disability,
which shall be limited to a specific period and for specific
decision and situation and shall operate in accordance to
the will of the person with disability.
(2) On and from the date of commencement of this Act,
every guardian appointed under any provision of any
other law for the time being in force, for a person with
disability shall be deemed to function as a limited
guardian.
(3) Any person with disability aggrieved by the decision
of the designated authority appointing a legal guardian
may prefer an appeal to such appellate authority, as may
be notified by the State Government for the purpose.
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 9 of 13
-- 9 of 13 --
13. Petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari is the natural mother and she
is seeking her appointment as Guardian in order to take legal decision
and to act on behalf of Ms. Arti @ Arthi and also to apply for release
all the service benefits of deceased Sh.M. Subramaniam @
Subramanian who was serving as Gardner with Government of Tamil
Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi vide ID Card bearing No.0211 in
favour of subject person. The brother of the subject person has already
given his consent / no objection. Sh. V. Elangoven, maternal uncle of
the subject person has also given no objection and stated that petitioner
has not remarried and she is taking care of her daughter i.e. subject
person. On behalf of respondent no.3, it is also submitted that Ms. Arti
@ Arthi is the nominee of Late Sh.M. Subramaniam.
14. Therefore, it is clear on record that subject person is
suffering from 70 % mental disability and therefore she is unable to
take decision for her own welfare.
15. Even under the general law under the Guardians and
Wards Act, after the death of father, mother can act as natural guardian.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Githa Hariharan vs Reserve
Bank of India & Anr. AIR 1999 SC 1149 observed as under:-
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 10 of 13
-- 10 of 13 --
“Be it noted further, that gender equality is one of the
basic principles of our Constitution and in the event the
word `after' is to be read to mean a disqualification of a
mother to act as a guardian during the lifetime of the
father, the same would definitely run counter to the basic
requirement of the constitutional mandate and would lead
to a differenciation between male and female. Normal
rules of interpretation shall have to bow down to the
requirement of the Constitution since the Constitution is
supreme and the statute shall have to be in accordance
therewith and not de hors the same. The father by reason
of a dominant personality cannot be ascribed to have a
preferential right over the mother in the matter of
guardianship since both fall within the same category and
in that view of the matter the word `after' shall have to be
interpreted in terms of the constitutional safe-guard and
guarantee so as to give a proper and effective meaning to
the words used. 25. In our opinion the word `after' shall
have to be given a meaning which would sub-serve the
need of the situation viz., welfare of the minor and having
due regard to the factum that law courts endeavour to
retain the legislation rather than declaring it to be a void,
we do feel it expedient to record that the word `after' does
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 11 of 13
-- 11 of 13 --
not necessarily mean after the death of the father, on the
contrary, it depicts an intent so as to ascribe the meaning
thereto as `in the absence of `- be it temporary or
otherwise or total apathy of the father towards the child or
even inability of the father by reason of ailment or
otherwise and it is only in the event of such a meaning
being ascribed to the word `after' as used in Section 6 then
and in that event the same would be in accordance with
the intent of the legislation viz. welfare of the child. 26. In
that view of the matter question of ascribing the literal
meaning to the word `after' in the context does not and
cannot arise having due regard to the object of the statute,
read with the constitutional guarantee of gender equality
and to give a full play to the legislative intent, since any
other interpretation would render the statute void and
which situation in our view ought to be avoided”.
16. In view of material placed on record, I am of the opinion
that petitioner Smt. Rajeshwari is to be appointed as guardian of Ms.
Arti @ Arthi for taking legal decision and to act on her behalf and also
to apply for release all the service benefits of deceased Sh.M.
Subramaniam @ Subramanian who was serving as Gardner with
Government of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu House, New Delhi vide ID
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 12 of 13
-- 12 of 13 --
Card bearing No.0211 with the condition such benefits / monetary or
otherwise, so received, would be utilized by the petitioner only for the
welfare and to meet the requirements of subject person Ms. Arti @
Arthi. For this purpose, let an indemnity bond be executed by petitioner
in this regard. Further, the petitioner /mother of the subject person
shall invest the service benefits of deceased Sh.M. Subramaniam @
Subramanian in the form of FDR in the nationalised bank in the name
of the subject person Ms. Arti @ Arthi and shall place on record the
attested copy of the said FDR before this court. The petitioner is
permitted to withdraw the interest received on the amount so deposited
in the FDR to utilize the same to meet the basic needs and upkeep of
the subject person.
17. Petition is accordingly allowed.
18. Necessary certificate be issued in favour of petitioner
Smt. Rajeshwari.
19. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court
on 7th November 2025
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge,
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi
G. P. No. 08/2024
Page no. 13 of 13
-- 13 of 13 --