'No One More Suited Than Her': Orissa High Court Appoints Wife As Legal Guardian Of Comatose Husband

Filling a legislative void by judicial intervention, the Orissa High Court has recently appointed the wife of a person lying in 'comatose'/ 'vegetative state' to manage his personal, financial, legal, medical and business matters as his 'legal guardian'.

Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi not only called attention to the vacuum in the existing statutory regime regarding appointment of guardian of people in vegetative state but also emphasised the role of a wife in managing the personal and financial affairs of her husband in the following words –

“…when a husband falls into a comatose or vegetative state, losing the ability to exercise reason, make decisions, or act on his own behalf, there can be no person more naturally, morally, or legally suited than the wife to act as his guardian. She has shared in his life, his burdens, his responsibilities, and his dreams. She is likely to understand his values, intentions, and wishes more than any other individual. Her appointment as guardian is not only an act of legal necessity but also one of moral imperative and social logic.”

In a similar case recently, the Karnataka High Court had appointed a woman as the legal guardian of her comatose husband and had permitted her to operate his bank accounts.

Case Background

In January 2024, the husband of the petitioner was admitted to hospital after being diagnosed with pneumothorax (fluid accumulation in the lungs). During the course of treatment, his condition got deteriorated due to a rise in creatinine and urea levels, necessitating dialysis and intensive care owing to multiple organ failure.

As per medical suggestions, he was airlifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, Haryana in February 2024, where he suffered a cardiac arrest but fortunately, survived. However, he remained unconscious and has since been in a vegetative state, requiring ventilator support and constant monitoring across various ICUs.

The husband of the petitioner was a businessman actively engaged in multiple enterprises. His business obligations required regular execution of sale deeds, payments to contractors, suppliers, employees, and the remittance of applicable taxes, particularly in relation to an ongoing apartment construction project. Apart from that, his medical expenses coupled with household expenditures and educational fees of their son needed a huge amount of money.

Therefore, the petitioner sought to be appointed as the legal guardian of her husband to act on his behalf in all matters including legal, commercial, statutory and financial transactions. She further prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the concerned authorities and institutions to recognize her legal authority to represent her husband in view of his medical incapacitation.

'Wife' an equal partner in marriage

Before delving into the legal parameters, the Court discussed the cultural connotation of a marital bond. Justice Panigrahi said that marital partnership is not merely contractual but spiritual, emotional and existential, and the wife is not only a companion but also, as ancient Indian philosophy describes, the 'Ardhangini', the other half of the husband.

“The very word “Ardhangini” derives from the Sanskrit roots ardha (half) and ang (body), signifying that the wife is not a separate entity but one half of a composite whole. This concept finds powerful embodiment in the divine form of Ardhanarishvara, where Lord Shiva and Goddess Parvati unite as a single form representing the indivisible synthesis of the masculine and feminine energies: Shiva and Shakti,” he added.

Legislative void in appointment of guardian

The Court perused the medical certificate which certified that he is not able to communicate in writing or verbally and he is taking a long time to understand any verbal input. Despite of the same, the Court underlined that there is a legal vacuum in appointment of guardians for comatose persons which has resulted in a lack of uniformity and predictability.

Justice Panigrahi referred to Section 2(s) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which defines “persons with disabilities” as those who have long-term impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society.

“However, this statutory definition presumes a degree of responsiveness or interaction, albeit limited. In contrast, individuals in a comatose or vegetative state are entirely unresponsive and incapable of interaction or decision-making. Consequently, such persons fall outside the ambit of the said statutory framework, including the appointment of a guardian under Section 14 of the Act,” he observed.

Court's obligation under 'parens patriae' jurisdiction

The Court, however, made it clear that lack of law cannot become a justification for denial of relief when the life, dignity and welfare of an incapacitated person are at stake. In such exceptional situations, it held, the Court is duty-bound to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution which finds expression in the doctrine of 'parens patriae'.

It cited the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M. & Ors (2018) where it was held that mental incompetency is an exceptional circumstance which would justify the exercise of the aforesaid jurisdiction. If the Court is satisfied that the person concerned is in a vegetative state, then it is justified in invoking the jurisdiction in the best interest of the person.

The Court further made reference to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2019) where a similar issue cropped up for consideration. While highlighting the absence of any legislative framework enabling the appointment of a guardian for persons in a comatose or vegetative condition, the Court had invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction and framed detailed guidelines to address such exigencies in future cases.

The High Courts of Delhi and Bombay followed the dictum, as laid down by the Kerala High Court, in Vandana Tyagi v. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2020) and Rajni Hariom Sharma v. Union of India (2020) respectively. Having regard for the above precedents, the Bench held –

“Therefore, recognizing the wife as the guardian of her husband in a comatose or vegetative condition is not only consistent with statutory principles and constitutional values, but also resonates deeply with cultural ethos and time-honoured traditions that venerate the marital bond as one of unity, duty, and mutual guardianship.”

It also emphasized that in an era of evolving jurisprudence on personal liberty, bodily autonomy and dignity, the law must not operate in a vacuum and the judiciary must proactively fill the legislative voids by creating pragmatic frameworks that safeguard incapacitated individuals without undermining their human dignity.

“Where an individual is rendered silent by medical misfortune, the voice of the law must resonate through the person most intimately aware of his needs and values: his spouse. Any interpretation that obstructs her from assuming this role would not only be antithetical to compassion but would also amount to judicial abdication in the face of a moral and constitutional imperative,” it added.

Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as the legal guardian and representative of her comatose husband with full authority to manage all his personal, financial, legal, medical and business matters, including compliance with statutory obligations. All the relevant authorities, banks and regulatory bodies were directed to recognize her authority for all relevant purposes.

Case Title: Epari Sushma v. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 24656 of 2024

Date of Judgment: May 09, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Soumya Sekhar Parida, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Ms. Sulochana Patra, Central Govt. Counsel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 72

Click Here To Read/Download Order