Karnataka High Court Appoints Wife As Guardian Of Comatose Husband | Guillain Barre Syndrome Makes Signing Impossible | Allows Her To Operate His Bank Accounts For Treatment And Livelihood
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna appointed the petitioner as the legal guardian of her comatose husband and directed three respondent banks to permit her to operate his accounts. The Court held that the petitioner, being the lawful spouse of the account holder who has been in an intensive care unit for over nine months and unable to sign or write, is entitled to access the accounts for medical and household expenses. The Court issued this order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of a specific statutory provision governing guardianship in such circumstances.
The petitioner, wife of a retired public servant, approached the Court seeking appointment as her husband’s guardian and issuance of directions to three banks to allow her to operate his accounts. Her husband, Dr. Anil Kumar H.V., retired on 12.11.2024 but developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome shortly before his retirement. From 23.06.2024 onward, he remained hospitalised in the intensive care unit at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, under mechanical ventilation.
Supporting her petition, the petitioner submitted two medical certificates—one from Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, and another from Manipal Hospital. These documents confirmed her husband’s diagnosis and stated that he suffered from severe limb weakness, required ventilator support, and was mentally sound but physically incapable of signing or writing due to the neurological condition.
After submitting these documents, the petitioner made representations to the respondent banks—State Bank of India (MS Building Branch, Bengaluru and Sagara Road Branch, Shivamogga) and Indian Overseas Bank (Mahalakshmipuram Branch, Bengaluru)—requesting permission to operate her husband’s accounts to cover his treatment and support the family. Despite providing necessary documentation, no action was taken by the banks, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.
The petitioner claimed that the family was facing acute financial hardship, unable to meet even daily expenses, as all access to the account—one of which also held the pension of the husband—had been blocked. The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking appropriate relief and recognition as a guardian for practical and legal purposes.
The State did not oppose the petition, and the banks stated that they would comply with any direction from the Court, acknowledging the account's inactivity due to the husband’s medical incapacity.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded: “The relationship between the petitioner and the account holder—Dr. Anil Kumar H.V., is husband and wife. Just before retirement, the husband develops Guillain Barre Syndrome, which necessitates a patient of that syndrome to be on ventilator and results in ebbing mental prowess. The patient would become incapacitated to write and sign.”
Referring to the petitioner’s inability to access the accounts, the Court stated: “This appears to have resulted in no money being permitted to be withdrawn or transferred from all the three Banks—respondents No.2 to 4 leading to impecuniosity.”
On the authenticity of the medical condition, the Court noted: “The medical certificates have been appended to the petition. The condition of the petitioner is as follows:… He is bed bound and is completely dependent for all activities. He is also on mechanical ventilator… He is presently unable to write/sign in view of limb weakness.”
The Court pointed to the absence of statutory provisions in India for appointing a guardian for persons in a comatose state, and discussed relevant precedents, stating: “The High Court of Kerala in the case of Shobha Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala… has held that there is no enabling provision for appointment of a Guardian to a patient lying in comatose state under any statute in India… It is declared accordingly.”
Quoting the Kerala High Court further, the judgment observed: “Despite the fact that the patient/victim is having some properties in his name, the petitioners are not in a position to deal with the same and to raise funds for his treatment, upkeep and also for their living, because of the legal hurdles and for want of any clear legislative provision in this regard.”
The Court also cited the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Uma Mittal v. Union of India, stating: “We hereby appoint the Petitioner… as the guardian of her husband… vested with the property of her husband to do all acts, deeds and things for the proper medical treatment, nursing care, welfare and benefit of the [husband] and his children.”
In conclusion, Justice Nagaprasanna stated: “In the light of the condition of the husband of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner, the wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V., to operate the account, as if the husband was operating the account.”
The Court allowed the writ petition and appointed the petitioner as the guardian of her husband, Dr. Anil Kumar H.V.
It directed respondents No.2 to 4—the banks concerned—to permit the petitioner to withdraw funds for her husband's day-to-day treatment and the family's livelihood.
The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach it again if the need arises. It also instructed the banks not to cause any delay and to allow normal operation of the accounts by the petitioner as the wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Pettioner: Sri H. Venkatesha Dodderi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Shamanth Naik, High Court Government Pleader; Smt. Divya Purandar, Advocate; Sri Keerthi Kumar D. Naik, Advocate
Case Title: Sandya Anilkumar v. State of Karnataka and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:17786
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2025
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
