SATHEESH KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the husband of the 4th respondent and the father of the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was born on 18/5/2004. Ext.P1 Standing Disability Assessment Board Certificate substantiates that the 3 rd respondent is disabled with Down Syndrome and her disability is of a moderate category. Ext.P2 disability registration certificate issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment evidences that the 3 rd respondent is a person with intellectual disability of 55 per cent. The petitioner asserts that on 22/12/2024, the 4th respondent left the matrimonial home, along with the 3rd respondent, without any justifiable cause. It is his case that the 4th respondent has no independent source of income. Despite lodging complaints with the Police, no effective action has been taken. As the 3rd respondent has Down Syndrome and requires continuous care and protection, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application before the 1st respondent to appoint him as the legal guardian of the 3rd respondent as per the provisions of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (for short, "the Act"). However, by Ext.P9 communication, the 1st respondent rejected the application on the premise that Down Syndrome does not fall within any of the categories of disability recognised under the Act. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) The respondents 3 and 4 have filed a counter- affidavit opposing the writ petition. They contend that the petitioner has been maintaining an unnatural relationship with a 22-year-old male. The petitioner has also subjected the 4th respondent to matrimonial cruelty. It is further contended that, as the 3rd respondent has attained majority, she is entitled to decide with whom she wishes to live. It would neither be desirable nor conducive to the welfare of the 3rd respondent to compel her to live with the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.

(3.) In the reply affidavit, the petitioner has categorically denied the allegations levelled against him. He has reiterated that he has been denied access to his daughter. According to him, the 3rd respondent requires his care, affection and support. Her welfare would be secured by appointing him as her legal guardian.