IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 MFA.No. 18 of 2008 ---------------------------- (OP (MH)323/2006 OF VI ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 17/10/2007) .................................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY MENON, S/O GOVINDA MENON, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, EROOR, THRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN SRI.NIRMAL. S RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- NIL THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.18 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed against the order of the District Court, Ernakulam in rejecting the application under section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987. Appellant applied for being appointed as a guardian of a mentally retarded person. The above Act specifically excludes appointment of guardian of a mentally retarded person. Therefore, his application was rejected. The District Court also observed that it is for the appellant to apply for appointment as a guardian under the provisions of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full participation) Act, 1995 and National Trust for welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999. It is pointed out that even though under section 15 of the above Act duty of the guardian is to look after the person with disability and his property, no detailed provisions are made for appointment of a guardian of the property, but, the above Acts are intended for looking after mainly the person and the property. In this case, the mentally retarded person has extensive properties. This appeal is filed under section 76 of the Mental Health Act and section 83 of the MFA.18/2008 2 Lunacy Act. Petitions under the above Acts are not maintainable in respect of mentally retarded persons. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in another case this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has appointed a guardian, considering the inadequacy of the provisions for appointment of a guardian for looking after the property of the mentally retarded person. But, since Mental Health Act specifically excludes the mentally retarded persons, we are not interfering with the impugned order. We dispose of this appeal as not maintainable without prejudice to the right of the appellant elsewhere. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks