The Kerala High Court’s appointment of a guardian for a 93-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease, severe dementia and Parkinsonism highlights a difficult gap in India’s protection framework: what happens when an elderly person can no longer understand financial decisions, but no existing legal route clearly enables another person to manage their property?
The judgment, issued by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas on a petition filed by the woman’s 76-year-old sister, allows the sister to manage the patient’s property and financial affairs under court supervision. It also creates a reporting and permission structure intended to reduce the risk of misuse. The guardian must submit details of transactions and fund utilisation to the High Court registrar every six months, and must obtain specific court permission before transferring the woman outside the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court.
The case is important because the court did not treat dementia as a straightforward extension of existing guardianship principles. Instead, it examined whether the legal provisions already available could address the woman’s condition and the practical risks associated with her property and care.
The petitioner told the court that both sisters were spinsters and that the 93-year-old woman was bedridden and incapable of making decisions or managing her personal and financial affairs. She had substantial bank deposits, and the petitioner sought authority to oversee her daily needs as well as her financial, medical and legal interests.
The High Court directed a medical board to assess the woman’s condition. The board reported that she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, severe dementia and Parkinsonism. It also found that she was unable to write cheques, pay bills or manage her finances. Those findings established the practical difficulty at the centre of the case: routine activities required to preserve property and pay for care could no longer be undertaken by the account holder herself.
The court considered an earlier division bench decision that had laid down guidelines for appointing a guardian for a person in a comatose state. However, it held that those principles could not be mechanically applied to a person with dementia. A comatose condition and a progressive cognitive disorder may both create dependence, but the court treated them as legally distinct situations requiring separate consideration.
The judgment also examined two statutory routes. The court held that a guardian could not be appointed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, because the woman’s dementia did not qualify as a specified disability under the Act. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, was also found to be inapplicable for the purpose at hand. Even if a guardian were appointed under that law, the court noted, Section 17 did not empower the guardian to manage property.
This reasoning reveals the institutional problem the judgment had to solve. The woman required a person who could act on her behalf, but the legal provisions examined by the court did not provide a complete mechanism for property management in her circumstances. A family member may be willing to arrange medical treatment, pay bills or use bank funds for daily care, yet willingness alone does not necessarily provide a clear legal basis for handling another adult’s assets.
The absence of such a mechanism can create two risks at once. The first is administrative: essential expenses may become difficult to pay when the affected person cannot sign cheques, operate accounts or understand transactions. The second is protective: property and savings may become vulnerable to exploitation when there is no clearly authorised person accountable to a court.
The High Court referred to a 2021 Bombay High Court judgment that permitted the appointment of a guardian for a person suffering from dementia. It observed that people affected by dementia and Alzheimer’s disease lose cognitive abilities that deteriorate with age, and that dependence on others for daily activities can become inevitable, particularly in old age. Where a person can no longer make decisions or comprehend property transactions, the court said, the absence of a legally appointed guardian can expose that person to exploitation and prejudice.
The Kerala order therefore does more than identify the sister as the appropriate caregiver or relative. It places the authority to manage the woman’s affairs inside a supervised legal arrangement. The six-month transaction reports require the guardian to account for financial activity, including the use of funds. The requirement of prior permission for travel outside the High Court’s jurisdiction adds another layer of control over a decision that could affect treatment, residence, access to family and the court’s ability to supervise the arrangement.
The safeguards also recognise that guardianship is not automatically permanent or beyond scrutiny. The court stated that a relative, next friend or the patient’s sister could approach it seeking the guardian’s removal if neglect, abuse of powers or other grounds were noticed. That provision makes the arrangement reviewable and gives concerned parties a route to raise allegations before the court.
For families, the case shows that dementia-related incapacity can become a property and governance issue as much as a medical one. The patient’s needs include treatment and daily support, but meeting those needs may require access to bank deposits, payment of bills, management of legal interests and decisions about where care is provided. Without a formal order, a family member may face uncertainty over what actions are lawful and what evidence is required to justify them.
For courts, the decision points towards a case-by-case approach. The High Court did not simply import the principles used for comatose patients, nor did it rely on statutes that did not cover property management in this circumstance. It used medical evidence, the petitioner’s account of the patient’s condition and existing judicial reasoning to construct a supervised remedy for the specific case.
The judgment does not establish, on the facts supplied, a general statutory guardianship system for all people with dementia. It does, however, demonstrate how a High Court may respond when a person has lost the capacity to manage property and the available legal provisions do not provide a direct route. The extent to which similar petitions are filed, and how other courts treat comparable cases, will determine whether this approach becomes a more consistent judicial pathway.
The central issue is not only who manages an elderly person’s money. It is how the legal system can protect autonomy, provide continuity of care and prevent exploitation after decision-making capacity has substantially deteriorated. In this case, the Kerala High Court answered through a court-appointed guardian, mandatory financial reporting, judicial control over travel and the possibility of removal if the arrangement is abused. Those conditions are the key institutional features of the order and the elements that will matter most in any future cases involving dementia, property and family care.
