Courts Must Be Cautious In Cases Involving Persons With Unsound Mind, Ensure Their Rights Are Protected: Telangana HC
Fareedunnisa Huma
23 Dec 2024 7:40 PM IST
The Telangana High Court has underscored that courts must proceed with utmost caution in matters involving persons of unsound mind so that their rights are protected, adding that if a party to a suit alleges that the opposing party is of unsound mind held that the court must conduct a judicial inquiry to determine whether the allegation is true.
Justice K. Sujana while referring to Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Duvvuri Rami Reddi Vs Duvvudu Papi Reddy and others, which lays down certain principles to be followed while declaring a person of unsound mind, said:
“In matters involving persons of unsound mind, the Court must exercise utmost caution and diligence to ensure that the rights of such individuals are protected. Order XXXII, Rule 15 of C.P.C places persons of unsound mind or persons so adjudged in the same position as minors for purposes of Rules 1 to 14. When a party to a suit alleges that the opposing party is of unsound mind, the Court must conduct a judicial inquiry to determine whether the alleged person is indeed incapable of protecting his interests in the suit. This inquiry should consist of examining witnesses, the alleged lunatic, and seeking medical expert opinion.
Background
The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife. The husband (petitioner in the Civil revision petitions), in 2019 had filed an original petition before the trial court seeking a declaration, mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction against his wife. The wife (respondent in the Civil revision petitions) in 2022, had filed a suit for divorce on grounds of cruelty.
During the pendency of the suits, the wife filed an application (IA) each in the above-mentioned suits. The applications sought dismissal of the husband's original petition alleging that an insane person had instituted them without the appointment of a next friend under Order 32 Rule 3 CPC. The applications further prayed that the husband's father be appointed as his guardian.
The wife contended that her husband had admitted to his disability in the proceedings that were initiated by him, seeking custody of their minor child, in which, he stated that he could not pay maintenance on account of being mentally unsound. A certificate of disability issued to her husband by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India was also filed, and proof was filed to show that previously a guardian was appointed for the husband. It was also placed on record, that her husband was compelled to give up the ownership of his bank accounts to his wife due to his mental disability.
The husband on the other hand contended that he had three undergraduate degrees and a master's degree in law. That, he was regularly defending his clients in the court of law and hence could not be deemed a person of unsound mind. After hearing both sides, the trial court allowed the wife's applications and held that the husband who was suffering from bipolar disorder was a person of unsound mind and consequently appointed his father as his guardian. Challenging these orders, the husband approached the High Court by way of the civil revision petitions.
Findings
The High Court after perusing through the record observed, "trial Court did not conduct any inquiry to determine whether petitioner is of unsound mind before declaring him so and permitted his father to represent on his behalf and did not follow the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of C.P.C. The trial Court also did not send him for examination by the medical officer. As such, the orders impugned are not sustainable and the same are liable to be set aside".
It said that a thorough judicial inquiry, adherence to the prescribed procedure, and consideration of all relevant evidence are essential to ensure that the rights of such individuals are protected.
The High Court thus set aside the order of the trial court and allowed the husband's civil revision petitions.
Case title: X v/s Y
CRP 2890 of 2022
Counsel for petitioner: Advocate Apurva M. Gokhale
Counsel for respondent: Advocate Sr. Counsel Sunil B. Ganu
