THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2458 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada in I.A.No.728 of 2011 in O.P.No.575 of 2005. The petitioner, who is the husband of the respondent herein filed the above O.P seeking judicial separation between himself and the respondent stating that he is unable to bear the cruelty committed by the respondent; that the respondent is suffering with psychological disease and he requested her to take treatment for the same; that the respondent along with her parents approached Dr.R.K.Ayodhya, Psychiatrist at Vijayawada on 04.07.2005 and that the said Psychiatrist, after careful and thorough counselling, confirmed that the respondent is suffering from psychological disease and advised her to take medicines for a period of atleast six months continuously and thereafter he will re-evaluate her to assess the percentage of curability of psychiatric disease. Accordingly, he provided medicines to her and subsequently went to USA for his regular employment and the respondent stayed with her parents at Guntur. Later, he came to know that the respondent was not using the medicines, moreover, she was threatening the petitioner and her parents with dire consequences with her acts and words and the parents of the respondents are insisting him to take the respondent along with him to USA. The Court below started trial in the said suit and the evidence on the side of the petitioner was closed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1795 of 2009 to direct the respondent/wife for medical evaluation at Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, with a Specialised Psychiatrist for her better treatment. In the said I.A, the respondent/wife filed a counter-affidavit stating that she is ready and willing for her medical evaluation. The Court below allowed the said I.A directing the Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada to instruct the Psychiatrist under his control to examine the respondent and give his opinion/report on or before 22.01.2010. Accordingly, Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, Professor of Psychiatry, Siddhartha Medical College, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, examined the respondent and submitted her report dated 29.05.2010 stating that the respondent was admitted on 27.01.2010 in Female Psychiatry Ward and discharged on 03.02.2010; that the respondent was kept under conservation with her father as attendant; that the respondent was examined in detail; that based on the information and examinations, she opined that the respondent did not show any psychiatric abnormality during the conservation period and that the respondent was referred to Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad for personality assessment after discharge. Thereafter, the petitioner/husband filed I.A.No.1481 of 2010 to issue direction to the Superintendent, Government Hospital, Vijayawada to produce the report issued by Yerragadda Government General Hospital, Hyderabad on the ground that the said report was necessary for cross examination of the respondent. On dismissal of the said I.A, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.799 of 2011 and this Court dismissed the same holding that it is only the doctor, who could say about the mental illness, if any reflected in the said report; that mere summoning of the reports from Yerragadda Government Hospital, does not serve any purpose; that the Court below already recorded in the impugned order that since the report was received from Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, Professor of Psychiatrist, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, I.A.No.1795 of 2009 was closed and that the petitioner has not taken any steps to adduce any evidence by examining the doctors, who issued the certificates and he did not make such claim in the affidavit filed before the court below, but he claimed for the first time in the affidavit filed in the revision petition. After dismissal of the said revision, the petitioner filed I.A.No.727 of 2011 to reopen the evidence on his side and the present I.A.No.728 of 2011 to send the witness summons to Dr.Ayodhya R.K, Neuro, Psychiatrist and Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, Professor of Psychiatry, Siddhartha Medical College, Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. The Court below, by the impugned order, while allowing I.A.No.727 of 2011, partly allowed I.A.No.728 of 2011 ordering handover summons to Dr.V.Radhika Reddy and rejecting to issue summons to Dr.Ayodhya R.K. However, no order as such was passed with regard to examining the Superintendent, Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, on petitioner’s side. Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the petitioner made a specific plea that the respondent was treated in the year 2005 by Dr.Ayodhya R.K, who prescribed some medicines to her stating that he would re-evaluate her to assess the percentage of curability of psychiatric disease, the Court below ought to have permitted the petitioner to examine the said Dr.Ayodhya R.K and that Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, Professor of Psychiatry, after giving her opinion referred the respondent to Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad for personality assessment, and on such reference, personality assessment of the respondent was assessed by the Superintendent of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, and therefore, the records maintained by the Superintendent of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad have to be furnished to the Court. Admittedly, at the instance of the petitioner, Dr.Ayodhya R.K examined the respondent and prescribed treatment. When the petitioner intends to adduce any evidence, he can always examine the said Dr.Ayodhya R.K as a witness. But, he has not chosen to examine the said Dr.Ayodhya R.K and he filed I.A.No.1795 of 2009 for referring the respondent for medical evaluation at the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, with a Specialised Psychiatrist for her better treatment. On allowing the said I.A, the respondent was kept for a week under the observation of Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, who furnished a report opining that the respondent did not show any psychiatric abnormality during the conservation period and she referred the respondent to Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, for personality assessment. Therefore, the lower Court rightly allowed the impugned I.A only to the extent of summoning Dr.V.Radhika Reddy. Admittedly, after discharge from Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, the respondent was referred to Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad for personality assessment. If any such assessment was made at the Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, the documents were with the Superintendent of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad. Since the Superintendent of Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad, is not the person, who made the personality assessment of the respondent, he cannot be summoned. In view of the same, the lower Court ought to have summoned the documents, if any, with regard to the personality assessment of the respondent from the Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad. The impugned order is silent on that regard. Therefore, while confirming the impugned order in respect of refusing to issue summons to Dr.Ayodhya R.K and issuing summons to Dr.V.Radhika Reddy, I.A is allowed to the extent of summoning records of the respondent from the Institute of Mental Health, Hyderabad. The Civil Revision is accordingly partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 21.10.2011 va