IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5379 of 2008 Date of Decision : September 18, 2008 Mrs. Monika Sharma and others ....Petitioners Versus Mrs. Darshna @ Anu and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Application filed by the petitioners under Order XXXII Rule 15 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for appointment of one of them as guardian of their father Vinod Kumar, who was arrayed as a respondent in a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Mrs. Darshna @ Anu, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh on 8.3.2008. The said order has been challenged by them by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mrs. Darshna @ Anu-respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against Vinod Kumar- respondent No. 2 with the averments that she was his legally wedded Civil Revision No. 5026 of 2008 -2- wife. She sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. During its pendency, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXII Rule 15 read with Section 151 C.P.C. stating that their father Vinod Kumar was suffering from mental disorder and getting regular treatment from Psychiatry Department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. He was not in a position to look after his welfare and interest. He was being looked after and served by Amit Sharma, one of the petitioners, in whose favour he had already executed a Will dated 7.4.1997, when he was in a sound disposing mind. As their father was not of sound mind, therefore, his interest could be saved and watched by the petitioners, who were having no interest adverse to that of Vinod Kumar. Therefore, it was prayed that one of them be appointed as guardian of Vinod Kumar, more so when Mrs. Darshna @ Anu was out to grab his property in the garb of filing a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The application was opposed by Mrs. Darshna @ Anu by filing her reply, wherein she pleaded that Vinod Kumar was hale and hearty and did not suffer from any mental disease. He was capable of looking after his welfare and interest. The application had been filed by the petitioners only with the motive of delaying the proceedings. She, accordingly, sought for dismissal of the application. As mentioned above, the application of the petitioners was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order holding that the Civil Revision No. 5026 of 2008 -3- medical record produced by the petitioners did not prove that Vinod Kumar was of unsound mind or that he was not capable to look after his welfare and interest. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Vinod Kumar-respondent, who is father of the petitioners, is of unsound mind. He is not in a position to depose in the Court. He is getting regular treatment from the Psychiatry Department of Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh. Therefore, a case was made out for appointment of one of the petitioners as guardian of their father Vinod Kumar. As is clear from the impugned order, an application had earlier been filed by Vinod Kumar himself for adjourning the Court proceedings sine die as he was suffering from psychiatric disorder. The application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 23.2.2006 directed Vinod Kumar to be produced in the Court in person. However, Vinod Kumar did not appear before the Court. Instead, it appears that he came up with the application under Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C. Which he got filed through his children from his earlier marriage with a prayer for appointment of one of them as his guardian. Learned trial Court also referred to the medical record prepared by Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh, Civil Revision No. 5026 of 2008 -4- which did not show that Vinod Kumar was mentally unsound or not capable to look after his welfare and interest. The only purpose of filing the application by the petitioners under Order XXXII Rule 15 C.P.C. appears to be a delaying tactic adopted by Vinod Kumar so as to stall/prolong the proceedings pending against him in a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by Mrs. Darshna @ Anu. No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 18, 2008 JUDGE satish