The Kerala High Court recently issued an order facilitating the reunion of an 80-year-old woman with her 92-year-old husband, who had been taken away by their son to care for him due to his dementia. The case is titled “Shiju K Bhanu v The District Collector & Maintenance Appellate & Ors.”
Justice Devan Ramachandran intervened in response to the wife’s plea, seeking to reunite with her husband, whom she claimed had been unjustly separated from her by their son.
The judge poignantly remarked, “Till death do us part,” before issuing directives for the couple’s reunion at their family home.
The High Court took cognizance of reports submitted by a social justice officer and the police, which indicated that despite suffering from dementia, the husband found happiness and shared “good moments” with his wife.
The Court emphasized that the senior citizen husband should never be denied the company of his wife, as it was his inviolable and absolute right.
The couple’s son had argued that he took his dementia-afflicted father to his own residence because his mother was too unwell and elderly to provide the necessary care. He also cited a dispute with neighbors as a reason for not residing in the family home, where his mother lived.
In contrast, the mother filed a petition with the High Court, seeking directions to reunite with her husband, expressing concerns about potential mistreatment by her son and his family based on past incidents.
Justice Ramachandran noted that the son’s reluctance to stay in the family house was primarily due to fears of confrontations with neighbors.
Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose presented reports from a social justice officer indicating that the husband found the most happiness in the company of his wife and expressed a desire to live with her in the family home.
Kuriakose also highlighted that the local police had not reported any threats from the neighbors and were willing to take necessary steps to ensure the family’s safety.
The son personally appeared before the Court, asserting that these reports were manipulated to favor his mother’s interests. He contended that his mother’s actions were influenced by his sister and reiterated that he was the most capable of caring for his father due to his mother’s ill health.
Challenging an order from a senior citizens appellate tribunal to return his father to the family home, the son assured the Court of his father’s contentment living with him. He also offered to care for his mother if she chose to relocate to his residence.
The Court, however, opined that the son could provide care for his father in the family home and directed a social justice officer to accompany the senior citizens to their family house and visit them weekly, filing monthly reports.
The Court clarified that the son was free to stay or visit the family house to be with his father, provided it aligned with his mother’s wishes. Additionally, the son could request police protection if he anticipated any threats.
The case is scheduled for the next hearing on November 13, with Advocate Ramkumar Nambiar assisting the Court as amicus curiae.
