1 WP 6629-2019.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6629 OF 2019 SUPRABHA PRAKASH SALVI VERSUS PRAKASH ANANDA SALVI AND ANOTHER … Mr. N.B. Narwade – Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.R. Zambare – Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.D. Wange – AGP for Respondent No.2, State … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 18.03.2026 O R D E R : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and learned A.G.P. for respondent No.2, State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Application No.300 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner seeking her appointment as guardian of her disabled brother, namely Sagar Prakash Salvi, came to be rejected. 3. This Court, vide order dated 25.06.2019, recorded observations in paragraphs 4 to 6, which read thus : “4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has categorically stated that respondent No.1 does not have any landed property or any such movable properties to which the petitioner and her 2026:BHC-AUG:12813 2 WP 6629-2019.odt special brother Sagar could lay a claim for inheritance. He submits on instructions that the petitioner would not utilize the guardianship certificate for any purpose and would also not utilize the same for stalling her transfer, which is a normal incidence of her service. She is working as a Nurse in the Health Department and is presently deployed at Ahmednagar. A specific affidavit of the petitioner is also tendered across the bar, dated 20/06/2019, which is marked as Exhibit “X” for identification. 5. The learned AGP submits that Sections 50 to 53 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 1987, which is applicable to the case of the petitioner as the proceedings were initiated on 12/12/2017 and the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was introduced by the Central Government, published in the Official Gazette dated 02/01/2018 and brought into effect from 07/07/2018, would indicate that if a mentally ill person has a landed property and if such a person is incapable of taking care of himself and managing his property, a guardian could be appointed u/s 52 r/w Section 53. 6. As in the instant case, there is an admission that there is no immovable property with respondent No.1, father. Such a guardianship certificate therefore may not be necessary. He, however, submits that it would be appropriate to direct respondent No.1 to file an affidavit that he does not have any landed property or such properties which Sagar could inheritate or which would require a Manager keeping in view that the impugned order does not indicate any statement made by respondent No.1 father of the petitioner and Sagar.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an affidavit dated 20.06.2019 stating that respondent No.1 (father) does not possess any immovable or inheritable property. This Court had accordingly directed respondent No.1 to file an affidavit to that effect. 3 WP 6629-2019.odt 5. In view of the affidavit now placed on record, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition by setting aside the impugned order. 6. The Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 22.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-7, Ahmednagar in Misc. Civil Application No.300 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. 7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE Pooja Kale/