INTHECOURTOFDR.NEERABHARIHOKE ADDL.SESSIONSJUDGE06:SOUTHEAST SAKETCOURT:NEWDELHI CriminalAppealNo.175/2017 1.Sh.[ENTITY], S/oLateSh.J.P.Jain, R/oK19,SecondFloor(Back) KailashColony, NewDelhi. [ENTITY] S/oLateSh.J.P.Jain, R/oK16A,KailashColony, NewDelhi 3.Smt.[ENTITY] W/oSh.AshokKumarJain, R/oK16A,KailashColony, NewDelhi [ENTITY] S/oLateSh.J.P.Jain, R/oK6A,KailashColony, NewDelhi 5.Smt[ENTITY] [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 1 W/oLateSh.AnilKumarJain, R/oK6A,KailashColony, NewDelhi 6.Smt[ENTITY] W/oLateSh.J.P.Jain, R/oK16A,KailashColony, NewDelhi Appellants Versus 1.Smt.[ENTITY], W/oSh.[ENTITY], R/oS459,GreaterKailashPartII, NewDelhi110048 2.Ms.[ENTITY]), D/oSh.SunilJain, ThroughMother[ENTITY], R/oS459,GreaterKailashPartII, NewDelhi110048 Respondents
Reservedon:09.02.2018 Announcedon:28.02.2018 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 2 JUDGMENT
1.VidethisjudgmentIshalldecidethepresentappealfiledundersection 29 of The [ACT], hereinafter referredtoasDVAct.againsttheorderdated17.04.2017,learnedMMinCCNo. 61941/2016filedagainsttheappellantsbyrespondentsno.1and2under[SECTION]oftheProtectionofWomenfromDomesticViolenceAct2005.
2. Briefsubmissionsoftheappellantsare:
(a) Theimpugnedorderistotallyillegal,withoutjurisdictionandagainst theprovisionsofMentalHealthActandDVAct.
(b) The impugned order of the Ld. Trial Court is based upon mere conjecturesandsurmiseswhicharewronglydrawnbytheLd.TrialCourt.TheLd. TrialCourtinitsorderhastotallymisconstruedthepurposeandthescopeofthe application filed by the appellants before the Ld. Trial court for examination of respondent no. 1 by a medical team of doctors on account of the fact that the respondent no. 1, admittedly as per her own case and as per the undisputed averments in the earlier petition under [SECTION] of the Protection of Women againstDomesticViolenceAct(DVAct)wassufferingfromcertainmentaldisorders andwasanervouswreckatthetimethesaidearlierpetitionwasfiledinAugust 2014.ItwasthereforethattheearlierpetitionunderSection12oftheDVActon behalfoftherespondentno.1hadbeenfiledbyherfatheronherbehalfalongwith thedocumentsofthementalillnessofrespondentno.1andalsoanaffidavitofthe father of the respondent no. 1 who had filed the said petition stating that the respondentno.1wasmentallyunsound.Theaffidavitasregardstherespondent [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 3 no.1beingmentallyunsoundwasfiledbythefatheroftherespondentno.1inthe earlierpetitioninsupportofthemainpetitionaswellastheapplicationforinterim relief.Thesaidpetitiononobjectionsbeingraisedbytheappellantsasregardsits maintainabilityofthesamebythefatherofrespondentno.1onherbehalfwithout thesaidSh.SCJain(father)beingappointedastheGuardianofrespondentno.1 undertheMentalHealthAct,wasthereafterduringthehearingoftheAppealNo. CA26/2014filedbytheappellantsunderSection29oftheDVActbeforetheCourt of Sessions, Saket being an appeal filed by the appellants as regards the maintainabilityofthesaidearlierpetitonwasagreedtobewithdrawnbythefather ofrespondentno.1,withlibertytofileafreshasperlaw.
(c) Thefatherofrespondentno.1havingwithdrawntheearlierpetition, therespondentno.1thereafterimmediatelyfiledafreshpetitionbeingthepresent complaintcaseNo.619413/16beforetheMetropolitanMagistrateunderSection12 oftheDVActinthenameofrespondentno.1andherminordaughterunderthe signaturesofrespondentno.1onthepremisethattherespondentno.1hadsince August2014whentheearlierpetitionwasfiled,hadrecoveredfrommentalillness andwascompetenttofilethe2 nd petitionunderherownsignaturesinDecember 2014.
(d) Onperusaloftheavermentsmadeinthesaidcomplaintaswellas thereport oftheProtectionOfficerdated 05.01.2014thefollowingfactsemerge clearly:
(i) Thattheprotectionofficerinitsreportdated05.01.2014inthe headingitselfhasclearlyobservedthatthe:
"complainanthasamentallydisturbed".
(ii) Therespondentno.1herselfinpara43ofthecomplainthas admittedthatshehasbecomea"nervouswreck"andinpara45hasstatedtothe [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 4 followingeffect:
"Thepetitionerno.1isalsoundertreatmentofNeurologicalDisorder treatmentandanumberoftestsandcheckupsarerequiredforwhichfatherofthe petitionerno.1isspendingmoneywhichisthedutyofrespondentno.1. The copiesofthetestsreportsalongwithbillsareannexedasAnnexureE(Colly.)"
(iii) Therespondentno.1inpara57ofthecomplaintadmitsthat shehadfiledanearlierapplicationunderDomesticViolenceActinwhicharestraint orderwaspassedinherfavourandinpara58hasstatedthat:
"afterfewmonthsofthetreatmentofthepetitionerno.1sheisnow inabettershapeandstateofmindandcandeposebeforetheHon'bleCourtwitha healthydisposingmind".
(iv) Thatfromtheavermentswhicharemadeinthecomplaintand the documents inthe nature ofmedical records specially the prescription dated 14.07.2014forthetreatmentoftherespondentno.1,itismanifestlyclearthatthe respondentno.1ishavingmentallyandneurologicaldisordersbecauseofwhich sheisnotcapableofmakingdecisionsinherowninterestandismentallyillas definedundertheMentalHealthAct1987.
(v) That the fact that respondent no. 1 is mentally ill is further established,apartfromtheavermentsmadeinthecomplaint,fromthefollowing:
Theearliercomplaintbeingcomplaintno.1765/3/14wasfiledby thefatheroftherespondentno.1onbehalfofrespondentno.1inwhichitwas clearly stated that respondent no. 1 was a "nervous wreck" and was mentally unstableandthereforethecomplaintandtheaffidavitareenclosedalongwiththe [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 5 presentappeal.
Thecopyofthereplyfiledbythefatheroftherespondentno.1on herbehalfincriminalappealno.26of2014filedbytheappellantno.1,whereinit wasclearlyadmittedinpara6that:
"thecomplainantNo.1wasunderNeurologicalDisorder treatment."
Andinpara3ofthereplyonmerits,itwasadmittedthatrespondent number1wasrenderedanervouswreckonaccountoftheallegedtortureinflicted bythepresentappellants.
IntheaffidavitsupportingsaidreplyinCANo.26of2014,ithas once again being stated that the respondent no. 1 was not of stable mind and thereforethereplywasbeingfiledbyherfatherSh.[ENTITY]Thecopy ofthereplyisAnnexureA5withthisappeal.
ThatfurtherincertainotherproceedingpertainingtoFIRNo.368of 2014 P.S. Greater KailashI, Part New Delhi, u/[SECTION], [SECTION] registered against the father, brother and the other relatives of respondent no. 1, at the instanceofappellantsno.3&5herein,namelythethreeanticipatoryapplications withfollowingparticulars:
i)BailApplicationfiledbySushilKumarJain.
ii)BailapplicationfiledbySh.[ENTITY].
Iii)BailapplicationfiledbySh.[ENTITY]
It has been once again admitted by the respondents therein that [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 6 respondentno.1hadbecomea"nervouswreck"andhad developed serious illness which had damaged her mental capabilities
(e) It is even the case of the appellants herein before the courts mentionedaboveaswellasintheirnoticedated07.07.2014thattherespondent no.1wasevenpriortohermarriagewithappellantno.1mentallyillandwasof unsoundmindandnotcapableoftakingindependentdecisionsinherowninterest.
(f) Therespondentno.1howeverwhilefilingthefreshcomplainthas not filed any medical certificate which declares the respondent no. 1 to have undergonementalrehabilitationandtohavebeendeclaredmentallyfitandsound.
(g) In the absence of any authentic medical certification from a GovernmentHospitalasregardsthementalconditionoftherespondentno.1,the complaint filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 is not maintainable and is barred undertheprovisionsoftheMentalHealthAct1987whichprescribesthemannerin whichtheproceedingsincaseofmentallyillpersonsaretobeconductedbytheir guardiansandadministratorsappointedbytheDistrictJudgeunderprovisionsof Section [SECTION] of the [ACT] 1987, after holding judicial inquisition as regardsthementalcapabilitiesofthementallyillperson.
(h) Appellantno.1hasalreadyvideDDNo.22Bdated20.11.2014,PS GreaterKailashII,NewDelhi110048filedacomplaintunderSection25ofthe MentalHealthAct,foramedicalInquisitionoftherespondentno.1,forhercare. Thepolicehavehowevernottakenanyactionoverthesame.
(i) Theappellantshereinonbeingissuedthenoticeofthe2ndcomplaint [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 7 under [ACT] by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate vide her orders dated 8 th of January2015,thereafterfiledanapplicationundersection245Cr.P.Cbeforethe Ld.MetropolitanMagistrate,interaliaallegingthatthepetitionwasnotmaintainable byrespondentno.1astherespondentno.1admittedlybeingacaseofmental unsoundnesscouldnotbeawitnessinhercaseandalsocouldnotfilethecase underhersignatureswithouthermentalconditionbeingfirstcertifiedtobesound byaMedicalexpiert.
(j) Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate thereafter on the objections of the appellantsunderSection245Cr.P.C.heardtheappellantson3 rd ofMarch2015 andbyherorderofsamedaterejectedthesaidcontention.
(k) The appellants against the order dated 03.03.2015 of the Ld. MetropolitanMagistratedated08thofJanuary2015and3rdofMarch2015filedan appealnumberCANo.57/2015beforethecourtoftheSessionsJudgeSouthEast SaketNewDelhi. Thesaidappealoftheappellantswasthereaftertakenupfor hearinganddisposalofvideorderdated1stofDecember2015anddismissedwith certainobservations.
(l) Theappellantshadinthemeanwhileduringthependencyoftheir above stated appeal filed an application before the Ld. Trial Court for medical examination of the respondent no. 1 by a medical board, in light of the own avermentsandrecordofthecaseoftherespondentno.1beingtheearlierDVAct petition.
(m) AppellantschallangedtheorderoftheASJinappealNo.57/2015 dated1stofDecember2015,beforetheHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinCriminalMC No. 80/2016. The Hon'ble High Court issued notice onthe said petition ofthe appellants to the respondents and ultimately disposed of the same by its order [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 8 dated19.07.2016bywhichitwasdirectedthattheapplicationoftheappellantsfiled beforethetrialcourtforgettingrespondentno.1examinedbymedicalboardwould bedisposedoffbytrialcourtinanexpeditiousmanner.
(n) ThereaftertheLd.TrialCourton7thofApril2017inconnectionwith the application of the appellants for getting the respondent no. 1 examined by medicalboardrecordedthestatementofthecounselforrespondentno.1thathe hadnoobjectiontotherespondentno.1beingmedicallyexaminedasregardsher mentalfitnesstomaintainthepetitioninquestion.
(o) Thereafter the Ld. Trial court on 17th of April 2017 passed the impugnedorderdated17th ofApril2017ontheapplicationoftheappellantsfor medicalexaminationoftherespondentno.1andrejectedthesaidapplication.
3. Beingaggrievedbythesaidorder,theappellantshavepreferredthe presentappeal.
4. Groundsofappeal
(i) The impugned order is totally illegal and is based upon mere conjectures andsurmises&because theexamination ofrespondent no.1bya medicalboardwouldhavesetasideamajorcontroversywhichwasinvolvedinthe caseandwasadmittedonrecordbyrespondentno.1inherearlierpetitionunder theDVActaswellasthesubsequent2ndpetitionpendingbeforethecourt.
(ii) Because the respondent no. 1 in her earlier petition had herself claimedtobeanervouswreckandthefatherofrespondentno.1filedtoaffidavits statingthatrespondentno.1wasmentallyunsound.Inlightofthesaidpleadings which were admitted pleadings on record, no further evidence was required or [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 9 needed by the Ld. Trial court to form a prima facie opinion as regards the requirementofthementalhealthcheckofrespondentno.1.
(iii) Ld.Trialcourtintheimpugnedorderhastotallymisconstruedthe orderpassedbytheASJinappealnumberCA57of2015.Itisstatedthatifthe protectionofficerisnotcompetenttoassessthementalcapabilityofapersonafter havinginteractedwithapersonforalongperiodoftimeduringrecordingofthe proceedingsoftheDIR,thecourtalsocouldnothavebyashortinteractionwith respondentno.1assessedthemedicalcapabilityofrespondentno.1,whichwas onlyintherealmofamedicalboardorapsychiatrist.
(iv) Ld. Trial court has wrongly construed the observations of the appellatecourtthattheappellantswereentitledtoraisethepleaofmentalillness afresh before the trial court if they could bring some evidence to establish the mentaldisorderofrespondentno.1. Itisstatedthattherewasampleevidence alreadyonrecordasregardsthementalillnessofrespondentno.1intheformof thedocumentsfiledbyrespondentno.1inherearlierdomesticviolencecase,the affidavitsoffatherofrespondentno.1,themedicalrecordofrespondentno.1,the report of the protection officer which were all sufficient to establish the mental conditionofrespondentno.1andtoenabletheHon'bleTrialCourttoformaprima facieopinionaboutthemedicalconditionofrespondentno.1beingnotasthatofa totally sound person and the respondent no. 1 being required to be medically examined.
(v) Ld. Trial court wrongly linked the disposal of the application for medicalexaminationoftherespondentno.1withthedisposaloftheapplicationof respondentno.1forgrantofinterimmaintenance. ItisstatedthattheLd.Trial courtbyitsorderdated3rdofMarch2015hadalreadygrantedinterimmaintenance to respondents and the appellant no. 1 was complying fully with the orders as [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 10 regardsthepaymentofthesaidmaintenance.Therewasthereforenooccasionfor theLd.Trialcourtformanopinionthatthemedicalexaminationoftherespondent no.1wasbeingwronglyinsistedbytheappellantsastheyintendedtodelaythe proceedingsandthedisposalofthemaintenanceapplication.
(vi) Ld.Trialcourtcommittedanerrorinobservingthattheappellants wereaskingformedicalexaminationoftherespondentno.1onlyonthebasisof theverbalallegationsandwithoutanymaterialbeingavailableonrecord.
(vii) Observation of the Ld. Trial court that the respondent was of a perfectly sound mind and there was no requirement to send her for medical examinationwastotallyincorrectandagainsttherecordaswellastheowncase setupbytherespondentsintheirtwodomesticviolencepetitions.
(viii) Admissionoftherespondentsthattherespondentno.1atthetime of filing of the earlier petition was suffering from depression but not mental unsoundness was sufficient for the Ld. Trial court to have directed the medical examinationoftherespondentno.1.
(ix) Courts in number of cases have held that medical examination controversyonceraisedbyoneofthepartiesasregardsthesoundnessofmindof theotherpartycanberesolvedonlybymedicalexaminationandnotinanyother manner. The applicants in this regard rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiareportedas(1)Shardhav.[ENTITY]. Ram'sChandan&Ors.aswellasthejudgmentsofthe(3)MadrasHighCourttitled [ENTITY].[ENTITY]andalsothejudgmentofHon'bleSupremeCourtof IndiainLalitKishorev.[ENTITY]AIR2010SC1240.
(x) ProvisionsofOrder32Rule15oftheCPCalsoenvisageandinquiry [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 11 bytheHon'bleCourtasregardsmentalinfirmityofanypersonduringthependency ofacaseanditwasthereforeadutyofthetrialcourttohavedirectedthemedical examinationoftherespondentno.1.
(xi) Thatbecausetheappellantno.12waswillingtobeartheexpenses ofthemedicalexaminationoftherespondentno.1andinlightoftheconsentof respondentno.1tobemedicallyexaminedtherewasnoreasonforthelearned TrialCourttodismisstheapplicationinquestion.
(xii) BecausethelawaslaiddownbytheHon'bleHighCourtofDelhiin variousjudgmentsincludingthejudgmentreportedas(I)212(2014)DLT5(DB) [ENTITY].UnionofIndia,(ii)2014(208)DLT61RaviDuttav.KiranDutta& Anr.And(iii)2012 (190)DLT647ShambhuPrasadSinghv.[ENTITY] hasbeen totallyignoredandintentionallysidelined.
(xiii) Because the court while rejecting the Domestic Incident Report observation that the complaint had a mentally disturbed condition has wrongly takentheviewthattheprotectionofficerwasnotcompetenttohaveproceededto makeanenquiryasregardsthementalcoditionofrespondentno.1. Itisstated that the purpose of the enquiry by the protection officer under the [ACT] to place before the court a correct picture of relevant circumstancesandthetruthoftheallegationsmadebythecomplainant.Therefore thementalconditionofthecomplainant/respondentno.1wasaveryrelevantand materialfactortobeobservedinordertodeterminetruthofherallegationsagainst theappellantno.1andhisfamilyandtheobservationaboutthementalhealthof therespondentno.1couldnothavebeentreatedtohavebeenbeyondthescope oftheenquirytobemadetheprotectionofficer.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 12
(xiv) BecauseasperSection9oftheDomesticViolenceActitwasthe dutyoftheprotectionofficertohavemadeaproperenquiryandevenhavethe aggrievedpersonsmedicallyexamined.
(xv) It was improer and illegal on part of the learned Metropolitan MagistratetohavetotallyignoredtheDomesticIncidentReportoftheProtection Officerwhileholdingthecomplainttobemaintainable.
(xvi) AsperthelawlaiddownbytheHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiain AIR2003SC3450Shardav.[ENTITY].TheHon'bleSupremeCourthasclearly heldthatincasesofdivorceproceedingsinvolvingmentalillnesssofoneofthe spousesmedicalexaminationofapartycanbeorderedbythecourtatanystagein ordertosatisfyitselfastowhetherapartybeforeitsuffersfrommentalillnessor noteitherforthepurposeofappointmentofguardiaundertheIndianLunacyActor theCPCasalsoforthepurposeofdeterminationofthecompetenceofapartyto appearasawitness.
(xvii) ThatbecausetheLd.Trialcourtwhilerejectingtheobjections oftheappellants,couldnothavebyherselfdeclinedtherespondentno.1to bementallyfit,aseventhetrialcourtwasnotamentalpsychiatric,ifthe protectionofficerwasnotandtheLd.Courttothesaidextentexceededher jurisdictiontotally.
(xviii) Thatbecauseitwasmandatorythatthecomplaintifanybefiledon behalf of the respondent no. 1 only by her duly appointed guardian under the MentalHealthAct,1987.
(xix) Because therespondent no. 1beingadmittedlymentallyunstable couldnotbeexpectedtoverifyanddeposetowardstheaffirmationoftheallegatios [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 13 madeinthecomplaint.
(xx) Thelearnedmagistratehaspassedtheorderwithoutconsideringthe reportoftheprotectionofficerunderSection12oftheDVAct.
(xxi) Becausethecomplaintaswellasthesummoningorderaretotally perverse,illegalandwithoutjurisdictionastheyareagainsttheprovisionofMental HealthAct1987andtheDVAct.
(xxii) Becausethecomplaintisbaseduponcompletehearsayandisself concoctedbyathirdpartyonbehalfofamentallyunstablepersonandassuchis withoutanymerits.
(xxiii) BecausetheallegationsmadeinthepetitionunderSection12are totally false and baseless and are against the earlier complaints filed by the respondentson10.04.2014and05.07.2014,whichwerethenwithdrawn,andare beliedbythesame.
(xxiv) Because the reliefs claimed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] are beyondthescopeoftheProtectionofWomenagainstDomesticViolenceActand arenotmaintainable.
5. Detailedreplyhasbeengivenbytherespondentswhereintheyhave deniedthesubmissionsmadebytheappellantandhaveprayedfordismissalofthe presentappeal.
6. Argumentsheard.Recordperusedcarefully.
7. Thegroundsraisedin(xxi)to(xxiv)arenotbeingadvertedtoasthe [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 14 samearebeyondtheambitofthepresentappeal.
8. Theappellantshavereliedonthefactthatearlierapetitionunder Section12oftheProtectionofWomenagainstDomesticViolenceAct(DVAct)was filedonbehalfoftherespondentno.1byherfatheronherbehalfalongwiththe documentsofthementalillnessofrespondentno.1andalsoanaffidavitofthe father of the respondent no. 1 stating that the respondent no. 1 was mentally unsound.sufferingfromcertainmentaldisordersandwasanervouswreckatthe timethesaidearlierpetitionwasfiledinAugust2014.Itwaslaterthattheearlier petitionunderSection12oftheDVActwaswithdrawnbythefatherofrespondent number 1atthe stageofappeal No.CA26/2014 filedby theappellants under Section 29 of the [ACT] before the Court of Sessions, Saket challenging the maintainabilityofthesaidearlierpetiton. Theappellantshavesubmittedthatthe sameamounttoadmissiononpartofrespondentnumber1andfatherthatsheis mentallyill/ofunsoundmindmentallyunstable.
9. To assess the said submission of the appellants, the previous complaintintheDVActfiledbythefatheroftherespondentnumber1onherbehalf andaffidavitofherfatherhasbeen.perused.Inpara2oftheaffidavit,hehadstated aboutrespondentnumber1thatsheisunderseveredepressionandatthetimeof filingthepetitionisnotinastablestateofmindandthereforehehadfiledthesaid petitionasaguardianforheraswellasherdaughter.Howeverbeingindepression ornotbeinginastablestateofminddoesnotamounttobeingofunsoundmindor mentallyillandthesubmissionsmadebytheappellantinthisregardarefoundto beincorrect.
10. ItisfurthernoticedthatthepreviouspetitionfiledunderDVActby fatherofRespondentNo.1onbehalfofrespondentnumber1wasagreedtobe withdrawnbythefatherofrespondentno.1,withlibertytofileafreshasperlaw.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 15 ThefilingofthepetitionbearingCCNo.61941/2016isasperlawasthereisnobar againstrespondentnumber1tofileapetitionunderDVActsolongasthesameis filedasperitsprovisions.Thusthereisnomeritinthecontentionoftheappellant thatrespondentnumber1couldnothavefiledafreshpetitionunderDVAct.
11. Respondentnumber1filedthefreshpetitionunderhersignatures onthepremisesthatsinceAugust2014whentheearlierpetitionwasfiled,shehad recoveredfrommentalillnessandwascompetenttofilethe2ndpetitionunderher ownsignaturesinDecember2014.Appellanthascontendedthatthesameisnot maintainableinabsenceofanyauthenticmedicalcertificationfromagovernment hospital as regards mental condition of respondent number 1 and thus the complaint filedbyher isnot maintainable andisbarred undertheprovisionsof [ACT]. Appellant has submitted that the respondent number 1 is mentallyunsoundasadmittedbyherfatherinthepreviouspetitionfiledunderDV actbyherfatheronherbehalf.Itisnoticedthatthefatherofrespondentnumber1 hadstatedthatshehasbeenrenderedasanervouswreckduetotortureinflicted uponherbytherespondents.
12. [ENTITY]. FatherofRespondentNo.1hadstatedthatshewasrenderedanervouswreckdue totortureinflicteduponherbytherespondents. Inpara25ofthepetition,itwas specifically stated that Petitioner No. 1 (respondent number 1 in the present appeal) wasactuallyfallingintothetrapoftherespondents asshewasalmost becominganervouswreck.Beingrenderednervouswreckorbeingindepression or having unstable mind is not an irrecoverable state of mind and respondent number1couldhavecomeoutofthesamesinceshewasstayingawayfromthose circumstanceswhichhadledhertogointodepressionorhavingunstablemind. There is nothing incredible about it and there is no reason to not to take that statementtobecorrectmoresoinviewofinteractionofthepresidingofficerof [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 16 LearnedappellatecourtinCAno.57/15whereinhespecificallyobservedthathe personallytalkedtoRespondentNo.1andopinedthatsheappearstobesound, rationalandprudentmind.
13. Further as observed earlier that being in severe depression or havingunstablemindorbeinganervouswreckdoesnotamounttoapersonbeing mentallyillorofunsoundmind.Similarlyasregardsexpressionnervouswreck.It has been rightly contended by respondent no.1 that as per Oxford dictionary meaning, nervous wreck means a person suffering from stress or emotional exhaustion.AsperMacMillandictionary,itmeanssomeonewhoisveryupsetand worriedandbynostretchofimaginationitcanmeanthatitamountstorespondent number1havingbecomeapersonofunsoundmindasmeantasperprovisionsof [ACT]
14. Admittedly the respondent number 1 has undergone treatment to comeoutoftheeffectofdepressionasperowncaseoftheappellants.Appellants havecontendedthatrespondentnumber1istakingthetablet Depakote forher treatment and the same is meant for treating manic episodes related to bipolar disorder (manicdepression) howeveritisnoticedthatthesaidmedicineisalso takenforpreventingmigraineheadaches.Thusthesaidsubmissionofappellantis notsustainablemoresosincethemedicalperceptionrelieduponbytheappellant isof14July2014muchbeforefilingofCCNo.61941/2016byrespondentnumber
15. Admittedlythepolicehasnottakenanyactionoverthecomplaintof the appellant under section25ofMental HealthActforamedical inquisition of RespondentNo.1andforhercare.
16. WhentheappellantsreceivedthenoticeoftheCCNo.61941/2016 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 17 byrespondentnumber1,theyhadfiledanapplicationundersection245CrPC, alleging that the petition was not maintainable as she admittedly being case of mentalunsoundnesscouldnotbeawitnessinhercaseandcouldnotfilethecase underhersignatureswithouthermedicalconditionbeingfirstcertifiedtobesound byamedicalexpert.ThesaidapplicationwasdismissedbylearnedMMvideorder dated03.03.2015.
17. Thesaidorderwasassailedbytheappellantthroughappealbearing CA No.57/2015. The said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 1st December2015.
18. The order of 01.12.2015 was challenged by the appellant before Hon'bleHighCourtofDelhiinCrl.M.C.No.80/2016andthesamewasdisposedof videorderdated19.07.2016bywhichitwasdirectedthattheapplicationofthe appellantsfiledbeforetrialcourtforgettingRespondentNo.1examinedbymedical boardwouldbedisposedofbythetrialcourtinanexpeditiousmannersinceinthe meantimetheappellanthadfiledanapplicationbeforethelearnedMMformedical examinationofRespondentNo.1byamedicalboard,inlightofherownaverments and record of case of Respondent No. 1 being unsound as per earlier [ACT] petition.
19. On07.04.2017,inconnectionwiththesaidapplicationfiledbythe appellants, learned counsel for respondent number 1 stated that he had no objectiontotherespondentnumber1beingmedicallyexaminedasregardsher mentalfitnesstomaintainthepetitioninquestion.Theappellantshavesubmitted that despite the said no objection, learned trial court dismissed the application movedbytheappellantsthroughtheimpugnedorder.However,thestatementof learnedcounselforRespondentNo.1,whereinhegavehisnoobjectionagainst therespondentnumber1beingsubjectedtomedicalexamination,isofnoavailfor [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 18 decidingtheapplicationoftheappellantasthesaidapplicationhastobedecided onthemeritsoftheavermentsmadeintheapplicationandnotonthebasisofnon oppositionornoobjectiongivenbytherespondentnumber1orhercounsel.
20. The applicants have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiareportedas(1)Shardhav.[ENTITY]. Ram'sChandan&Ors.aswellasthejudgmentsofthe(3)MadrasHighCourt titled N Senthil Kumar v. [ENTITY] and also the judgment of Hon'ble SupremeCourtofIndiainLalitKishorev.[ENTITY]AIR2010SC1240.
21. Appellants have contended that medical examination controversy onceraisedbyoneofthepartiesasregardsthesoundnessofmindoftheother partycanberesolvedonlybymedicalexaminationandnotinanyothermanner andhavereliedonlawlaiddowninAIR2003SC3450Shardav.[ENTITY],AIR 2010SC1240,LalitKishorev.[ENTITY]decidedon3December2010 [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY].[ENTITY]. Appellantshave contendedthatlearnedtrialcourt has not applied its mind to the facts of the case and should have allowed the applicationinwhichtheimpugnedorderhasbeenpassedasinallthesematters, therelevantcourthaddealtwithapplicationbeingmade/movedwhereprayerhad beenmadeforgettingthemedicalexaminationoftherespondentandthesame weredismissedbythetrialcourtsbuttheorderserereversedandtheapplications formedicalexaminationwereallowed.
22. All these judgments have been perused. However in all these mattersitisnoticedthatoneofthepartieshadmovedanapplicationforgettingthe medicalexaminationconductedofoneselforoftheoppositepartyandthesame wasdeclinedbytrialcourtsforthereasonthattherespectivetrialcourtshadopined thatinabsenceofanysuchprovisionintheFamilyCourtsActorHinduMarriage [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 19 Act,theycouldnothaveorderedforthesame.Whentheseorderswereassailed, theHon'bleappellatecourtsheldthatthetrialcourts/thecourtsareempoweredto satisfythemselvesastowhetherapartybeforeitsuffersfrommentalillnessornot eitherforthepurposeofappointmentofGuardianintermsoforder32rule15of CodeofCivilProcedureorsection41oftheIndianLunacyAct.Theconcerned courtshavemadespecificsimilarobservationinrespectofpendingproceedingsof divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the spouse that matrimonial courtsalsohavethepowertosatisfythemselvesinrespectofunsoundnessofmind ofthespousethroughmedicalexaminationeveninabsenceofanysuchprovision underHinduMarriageAct.Howeverintheimpugnedorder,learnedtrialcourthas nowhereexpressedthatitcannotexercisethepowerofmedicalexaminationofthe respondentnumber1orthatithaslackofjurisdictionorpowertodoso.Thusthe lawlaiddownintheaforesaid matters isofnoavailorhelptothecaseofthe appellant.
23. The law laid down in AIR 2003 SC 3450 Sharda v. [ENTITY] ratherhelpsthecaseofrespondentnumber1sinceinthesaidmatter,Hon'ble SupremeCourthasspecificallyobservedthat:
"Itishoweveraxiomaticthatacourtshallnotorderarovingenquiry. Itmusthavesufficientmaterialsbeforeittoenableittoexerciseits discretion. Exercise of such discretion would be subjected to the supervisoryjurisdictionofthehighcourtsintermsofsection115of CodeofCivilProcedureand/orArticle227ofConstitutionofIndia. Abuse of the discretionary power at the hands of a Court is not expected.TheCourtmustarriveatafindingthattheapplicanthas establishedastrongprimafaciecasebeforepassingsuchanorder."
The appellants have miserably failed to bring anything on record [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 20 muchlesssufficientmaterialtojustifyexercising/needofdiscretion.
24. Appellant has relied heavily on DIR submitted by the protection officerwhereitisnotedthatrespondentnumber1 hasamentallydisturbed. The appellanthasreliedonthelawlaiddownin2014(208)DLT61RaviDuttav.[ENTITY].,whereithasbeenheldthatnonconsiderationofDomesticIncident Report(DIR)bythetrialcourtwhiledecidingapplicationundersection12vitiates themandateofsection12andthereforetheorderoftrialcourtisnotsustainable.It isnoticedthatcopyofDIRsuppliedtoRespondentNo.1bytheprotectionofficer doesnotreflectthehandwrittencontentwhereitwaswrittenonthetopof1stsheet ofDIRthat[ENTITY]/complainanthasamentallydisturbed.ThuscredibilityofDIR losesitssignificanceasthesamehasbeenmanipulated.Evenotherwisethepower andfunctionsofProtectionOfficerarewelldefinedinsection9ofDVActandit nowhere authorises the protection officer to give his opinion about mental condition/statusofcomplainant.TakingofDIRintoconsiderationdoesnotmean accepting it for all intents and purposes and DIR needs to be taken into considerationsolongasitisinconformitywiththeprovisionsofDVActandnotfor thepurposesforwhichtheprotectionofficerisnotauthorisedtogivehisopinionor exercisehispowerundertheprovisionsofthesaidAct.Thereisnoinfirmityinthe impugnedorderwherelearnedtrialcourthasobservedthattheProtectionOfficeris not an expert psychiatrist to give any opinion on the mental capabilities of any person.Learnedtrialcourthasalsorightlyobservedintheimpugnedorderthatthe phrase"mentallydisturbed"cannotbeconstruedtomeanmentalillnesssoasto make the complainant incompetent toinstitute thecomplaint case.Learned trial court rightly dismissed the saidobjection taken bythe appellant before it. The submissionoftheappellantthatbecausetheLd.Trialcourtwhilerejectingthe objections of the appellants, could not have by herself declined the respondentno.1tobementallyfit,aseventhetrialcourtwasnotamental psychiatric, ifthe protection officer was not andtheLd.Courttothesaid [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 21 extentexceededherjurisdictiontotallyisuncalledforandderogatory.
25. Theappellanthasalsoreliedonthelawlaiddownin 212(2014) DLT 5 (DB) [PRECEDENT], the said judgement has been perused.Itwasheldinthesaidcasethatpendencyofacaseundersection12of theDVActdoesnotamounttopendingofacriminalcase.Thesaidobservationis ofnoconsequenceinthefactsofthecase.Ithasbeenfurtherobservedinthesaid case that under [SECTION], in matrimonial disputes, there is a tendency to implicateallfamilymembersofhusbandincludingmarriedbrothersandsisterswho werelivingseparatelyfromhusband.Thesaidobservationisalsoofnosignificance inthefactsofthecasetodecidethepresentappeal.
26. Appellanthascontendedthatlearnedtrialcourtwasdutyboundto allowtheapplicationofappellant.Howevertheguidingprincipleistheaforesaid observationofHon'bleSupremeCourtofIndiathat "TheCourtmustarriveata findingthattheapplicanthasestablishedastrongprimafaciecasebeforepassing suchanorder."
27. Thesamemandateisthereintheorderdated01.12.2015ofthe appellate court in [CASE NUMBER] where the liberty to move the said applicationwasgrantedtotheappellantsafreshbeforelearnedtrialcourtiftheyare abletobringsomethingonrecordintheformofevidencetoestablishanincurable neurologicaldisorder,ifany,sufferedbyrespondentnumber1asallegedbythem beforethelearnedappellatecourtinCAno.57/2015.
28. Thepresentappealhasbeenheardatlength.Howevertheappellant hasbeenunabletoproduceanysuchevidencebeforelearnedtrialcourtandeven beforethiscourttosupporthiscontentionthatthelearnedtrialcourtshouldhave allowedtheapplicationandthattheimpugnedorderisbadinlaw.
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 22
29. The appellant has expressed grievance over the observation of learnedtrialcourtintheimpugnedorderwhereithasobservedthat"Thiscourtis amazed at the length to which a party can go to delay the trial of a matter." Howeverthelitigationbetweenthepartiesandtheroundofappealsandfurther appealsandthenmovingoftheapplicationwhichwasdismissedbytheimpugned orderbylearnedtrialcourtsupportsobservationoflearnedtrialcourt.Iconcurwith theobservationoflearnedtrialcourtthatthepartiestolitigationcannotbeallowed to misuse the process of the court merely by stating that a person is mentally unsoundandthusforcingherorhimtobesubjectedformedicalexaminationfor gettingher/hismentalconditionassessed.
30. EvenundertheprovisionsofMentalHealthAct,"mentallyillperson"
meansapersonwhoisinneedoftreatmentbyreasonofanymentaldisorderother thanmentalretardation.[ACT]themagistrateis authorisedtopassreceptionorderforamentallyillperson.
However,section22specificallyprovidesthat: "(3) If the Magistrate considers that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further, he shall personally examinetheallegedmentallyillpersonunless,forreasonstobe recordedinwriting,hethinksthatitisnotnecessaryorexpedientto doso.
(4)IftheMagistrateissatisfiedthatareceptionorder mayproperlybemadeforthwith,hemaymakesuchorder,andif the Magistrate is not so satisfied, he shall fix a date for further consideration of the application and may make such inquiries [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 23 concerningtheallegedmentallyillpersonashethinksfit.
(6)IftheMagistratefixesadateundersubsection (4)forfurtherconsiderationoftheapplication,hemaymakesuch orderashethinksfit,forhepropercareandcustodyofthealleged mentallyillpersonpendingdisposaloftheapplication.
(7) On the date fixed under subsection (4), or on such further date as may be fixed by the Magistrate, he shall proceedtoconsidertheapplicationincamera,inthepresenceof
(i)theapplicant;
(ii) the alleged mentally ill person (unless the Magistrate in his discretionotherwisedirects);
(iii)theperson whomaybeappointedbytheallegedmentallyill persontorepresenthim;and
(iv)suchotherpersonastheMagistratethinksfit, and if the Magistrate is satisfied that the alleged mentallyillperson,inrelationtowhomtheapplicationismade,isso mentallyillthatintheinterestsofthehealthandpersonalsafetyof thatpersonorfortheprotectionofothersitisnecessarytodetain him in a psychiatric hospital or psychiatric nursing home for treatment,hemaypassareceptionorderforthatpurposeandifhe isnotsosatisfied,heshalldismisstheapplicationandanysuch ordermayprovideforthepaymentofthecostsoftheinquirybythe applicant personally or from out of the estate of the mentally ill person,astheMagistratemaydeemappropriate."
[PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 24 Thusevenundersection22ofMentalHealthAct,thefirstandthe foremostrequirementisthatthe Magistrateconsiders thattherearesufficient groundsforproceedingfurther,heshallpersonallyexaminetheallegedmentally illperson.Thusunlessthemagistrateissatisfied,nofurtherenquiryinrespectof mentalhealthofapersoncanbeproceededwith.
Similarly under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT], first and foremost requirement is satisfaction of the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further and if he is not satisfied, no order is passed in respectofexaminationofmentalhealth/mentalillnessofaperson.
31. Learnedtrialcourthasrightlyobservedthatthecourtcannotfallinto thetraplaiddownbyonepartymerelytodelaythetrialofthematter.Therehasto besomeprimafaciematerialonrecordtoassistthecourtinarrivingataconclusion thateitherpartybeforeitismentallyincapableoftakingcareofitsinterestandthus an assessment of his/her mental condition is required. Mere verbal allegations madebyonepartyquaanotherarenotsufficienttosubjectanotherpartytomental assessmentbyaboardofdoctors.Learnedtrialcourthasrightlyconcludedthat evenifnoobjectionasgivenbycounselforcomplainant,respondentnumber1in thepresentappeal,learnedtrialcourtdidnotdeemitappropriatetosubjectthe complainantwhoseemstobeofperfectlysoundmind,toanymedicalexamination forassessmentofhermentalsoundness.[CASE NUMBER] (appellant herein) learned appellate court had personallytalkedtoRespondentNo.1andopinedthatsheappearstobesound, rationalandprudentmind.Learnedtrialcourthasrightlydismissedtheapplication oftheappellanttobedevoidofmerits.
32. In view of these observations, I find no infirmity in the impugned [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 25 order and the same is accordingly upheld. Accordingly the present appeal is dismissedforbeingdevoidofmerits.
33. Copyofthejudgmentalongwithtrialcourtrecordbesentbackto learnedtrialcourt.
34. Filebeconsignedtorecordroom.
35. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial court on date fixed.
Announcedintheopencourton(Dr.[ENTITY]) 28.02.2018 AdditionalSessionsJudge06, SouthEast,SaketCourts, NewDelhi/28.02.2018 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date: 2018.02.28 20:06:07 +0530 [PRECEDENT] [ENTITY] & Ors. v. [ENTITY] & Anr. 26