RADHIKA KAPOOR Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. 6124/2016 (by the petitioner u/O XXXII Rule 3 CPC)

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No.3 had suffered a serious road accident in the year 1999, which had caused severe damage to his brain. A copy of the medical examination report of the respondent No.3 undertaken by a panel of doctors appointed by the Medical Superintendent, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi dated 01.07.2004, is on record wherein the Board had recommended that the respondent No.3's speech and language functions were severely affected which had caused him 100% disability with 25% disability in the lower limbs. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner being the wife of the respondent No.3, has been looking after him and attending to his daily needs over the years and he continues to remain in her care and custody. He states that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have two daughters; the elder one is already married and the younger one is studying law in Bangalore and it is the petitioner, who has been taking care of all the needs of her children and bearing all the expenses for their upbringing and education. It is in this background that the present application has been filed for permission to appoint the petitioner as the guardian ad litem of the respondent No.3, on the ground that he is not capable of securing his affairs and her interest does not clash with that of her husband, in any manner.

(3.) To start with, it is considered essential to examine the scope of the relevant provision of the CPC, namely, Order XXXII entitled "Suits By or Against Minors And Persons of Unsound Mind" which lays down the procedure to be adopted in a suit filed by or against minors and persons of unsound mind. In the facts of the present case, Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC would be relevant for consideration and is extracted below :