IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20867 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.743/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANUSRI,D/O.SWAMINATHAN,AGED 26 YEARS, MATHANARI HOUSE, NADAMANGALATH PARAPPIL, P.O.MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA SMT.BINDU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT,MEDICAL COLLEGE, HOSPITAL,KOZHIKODE. 2. RAJESH,S/O.C.G.DAMODHARAN, "AJITHA NILAYAM",ASARI PULPARAMBIL,P.O.MAVOOR, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R2 SMT.M.MANJU FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.20867 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant,J The petitioner herein is the wife. She is the respondent in O.P.No.743/08 pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. The respondent herein, her husband has claimed an order of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the petitioner herein, his wife, suffers from mental ailment. According to the petitioner/wife, she suffers from no mental ailment whatsoever. She was respectably employed. She pursues her normal avocation. The ground of mental unsoundness is raised with transparent mala fides and to vex and harass the petitioner herein. 2. During the pendency of the O.P, the respondent/husband filed an application that the wife may be subjected to psychiatric assessment and evaluation. The court below, by the impugned order (a copy of which is produced as Ext.P5) directed such examination.Consequently, Superintendent of the Medical College has now demanded that the W.P.C No.20867/09 2 petitioner/wife must be hospitalised in the Psychiatry department and must continue as an in-patient for a period of ten days for observation and evaluation. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has come before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no tangible and acceptable data before the court below to compel and oblige the petitioner to undergo the trauma of such admission as an in-patient in the Psychiatry Department. It is, in these circumstances, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the parties may be directed to adduce appropriate evidence in support of their contention. The petitioner may not be subjected to the trauma, humiliation and harassment of getting admitted in the Psychiatry Department for ten days, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. We find merit in this contention. We do, of course, recognise the right of the respondent to get expert evidence adduced about the mental condition of the petitioner herein; but we are perfectly satisfied that before obliging the petitioner to undergo such a traumatic process, the court below must have assured itself that there is sufficient material before it which can justify a direction to the petitioner to undergo such a traumatic process. At the moment, we do not find such materials. Of W.P.C No.20867/09 3 course, we note that certain prescriptions have been produced by the respondent herein. 4. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that the ideal course that the court below must follow is to allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions in the O.P and after the evidence in the O.P is closed, evaluate the materials and if the court still finds the need for such expert evidence, direct adducing of such expert evidence. At the moment and with the available inputs, we find the direction in Ext.P5 to be premature, to say the least. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. Impugned order, Ext.P5 is set aside. We do, however, hasten to observe that after all the evidence is adduced and evaluating the materials, the court below shall be at liberty to issue appropriate and reasonable directions to get the mental condition of the petitioner evaluated, if there be need for such expert evidence. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge W.P.C No.20867/09 4 W.P.C No.20867/09 5 W.P.C No.20867/09 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 29/07/2009