Introduction:

In the matter of Sandya Anil Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Others, WRIT PETITION NO. 10453 OF 2025, citation 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 176, the Karnataka High Court addressed a compassionate and practical legal question concerning the guardianship and financial rights of a wife when her husband is rendered incapacitated due to a severe neurological condition. The petitioner, Sandya Anil Kumar, wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V., approached the Court seeking permission to be appointed as the guardian of her husband who has been in a comatose condition and on ventilator support since June 23, 2024, following a diagnosis of Guillain-Barré Syndrome. Due to his medical condition, Dr. Anil Kumar has been completely incapacitated and unable to carry out daily functions, including the operation of his bank accounts that are crucial for his medical treatment and the family’s sustenance. The petition was heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who delivered a considered judgment taking into account the grievous medical circumstances and the necessity of immediate relief for the family. The petitioner had moved multiple representations to various banks including State Bank of India and Indian Overseas Bank, but no action had been taken, prompting judicial intervention.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Petitioner’s Submissions: The petitioner, represented by Advocate H. Venkatesha Dooderi, stated that Dr. Anil Kumar H.V., her husband, has been battling Guillain-Barré Syndrome for several months, with his condition progressively deteriorating. Since June 23, 2024, he has been in intensive care and on ventilator support, confirmed by multiple medical certificates issued by Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute. On November 29, 2024, a definitive diagnosis was made confirming his permanent dependence on mechanical ventilation. From February 22 to March 18, 2025, Dr. Kumar remained in ICU as his condition worsened and he lost all limb movement and ability to communicate. The petitioner, as his lawful wife and immediate family member, approached the banks with all necessary documentation seeking permission to operate his accounts for daily expenses, including treatment and household needs. However, the banks failed to act due to the absence of a formal legal directive or guardianship order. Highlighting the urgent nature of the crisis, the petitioner emphasized that her husband’s pension and savings were locked in those accounts, leading to a financial impasse that endangered the survival of the family. The petitioner further clarified that she had no other intention but to secure funds for medical bills and family sustenance, and that she was willing to act under court supervision if required.

Respondents’ Submissions: The respondents, comprising the State Government and three banks, were represented by HCGP Shamanth Nail (for R1), Advocate Divya Purandar (for R2), and Advocate Keerthi Kumar D Naik (for R4). Interestingly, none of the respondents objected to the prayer made by the petitioner. The banks, while maintaining that they required a court direction for such operation, confirmed that the accounts had been inoperative for some time and were therefore not accessible without an appropriate guardianship directive. The State took a neutral stand and submitted that should the court find merit in the case and issue directions, they would abide by it. There was no contest on the authenticity of the medical certificates or the necessity for the petitioner to access the accounts. The respondents accepted the medical reality of the husband’s condition and the legal relationship of the petitioner as his wife.

Court’s Judgment:

Upon hearing the submissions and perusing the material on record, including the detailed medical certificates and the history of treatment, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the case was one of unfortunate but urgent nature. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had consistently made efforts to gain access to the bank accounts lawfully but was hindered by the procedural requirement of guardianship. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that Guillain-Barré Syndrome had left Dr. Anil Kumar H.V. in a state of severe neurological impairment with no movement or communicative ability, thus necessitating permanent mechanical ventilation. The court found the medical evidence to be consistent, uncontroverted, and sufficiently grave to justify the petitioner’s request. In light of these peculiar facts, the judge appointed Sandya Anil Kumar as the guardian of her husband. A consequential direction was issued to Respondents No. 2 to 4—State Bank of India and Indian Overseas Bank—to allow the petitioner to operate the bank accounts of her husband as if they were being operated by him. The Court emphasized that the banks must not cause any delay and should ensure smooth operation of the accounts by the petitioner, allowing her to draw money for the day-to-day medical treatment of her husband and for maintaining the livelihood of the family. The judge further remarked that since the petitioner is not a stranger but the lawful wife of the account holder, her involvement in operating the account under these exceptional circumstances was both legally and morally justified. The Court refrained from putting any restrictions or conditions upon the withdrawal, considering the criticality of the health situation. It also reminded the banks that procedural rigidity should not triumph over humanitarian considerations in such exceptional cases. With this, the writ petition was disposed of.