Introduction
The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed a wife to act as the legal guardian of her husband who was in a persistent vegetative state. The Court permitted her to operate his bank account to meet medical and household expenses.
Case Title
Singavaram Nagamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Legal Issue
The issue was whether the High Court can appoint a legal guardian for a person in a comatose state and allow access to their financial assets in the absence of a specific statutory procedure.
Case Background
The husband of the first petitioner was in a permanent vegetative condition. He required continuous medical treatment, which involved significant expenses.
The wife and children faced financial difficulty in managing the treatment without accessing his bank account held with Axis Bank.
Since there was no clear legal process for appointing a guardian in such cases, the petitioners approached the High Court. They requested that the wife be appointed as guardian to manage the husband’s finances and property.
Medical records from Care Convoy Rehabilitation and New Life Rehab Hospital confirmed that the patient was in a comatose state.
Court’s Ruling
Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda allowed the petition.
The Court held that when a person is in a vegetative state and unable to make decisions, the spouse is the most suitable guardian. It referred to the concept of “Ardhangini,” recognising the wife as the other half of the husband.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that the matter should be decided by a civil court. It held that the petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Directions Issued
The Court authorised the wife to operate the husband’s bank account for medical and household expenses.
It also directed her to submit bank statements every three months for one year or until any major medical change occurs, whichever is earlier.
Implications
This judgment fills a legal gap in cases involving persons in comatose conditions. It confirms that High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction to appoint guardians where no statutory mechanism exists.
The ruling prioritises practical needs such as medical care and financial access. It also reinforces the legal recognition of spouses in decision-making roles during medical incapacity.
Conclusion
The judgment ensures that families are not left helpless in managing the affairs of incapacitated persons. It provides a humane and practical solution by recognising the spouse as the natural guardian in such situations.
