Plea For Holding Inquisition, Appointing Guardian For Mentally Ill Person Lies Before Court In Whose Limits Such Person Resides: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha made the clarification while setting aside an order dated 02-11-2017, passed by a civil court in Bengaluru and allowing the application made by petitioner P.S. Leelavathi, made under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Act.

N. Ravishankar and Kalpana Govindraj had moved a plea under Section 52 read with Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 to hold inquisition regarding the mental illness of M.K. Jayalakshmi and to appoint them as joint managers insofar as her property is concerned.

Leelavathi moved an application questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the Bengaluru court to hear the petition, invoking the provisions of Section 50 (1) (d) of the Act and sought for return of the petition

It was averred that the address of N. Ravishankar as mentioned where M.K. Jayalakshmi, is residing does not come within the territorial jurisdiction of the (Bengaluru) Court wherein, the petitioner has been filed.

The application was objected to by submitting that the court has got jurisdiction.

On hearing the parties the trial court proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the scheduled property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The High Court, referring to Section 50 (1) (d) of the Act noted that it is clear that when the person is suffering from mental illness and is possessed with the property, an application for holding an inquisition into the mental condition of such person may be made by either of the relatives before the District Courts within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides as stated under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act.

Then it held “A perusal of the miscellaneous application depicts that 5th respondent herein is in the custody of the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent centre is situated in 17th Mile, Kaggalipura, Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru.”

It added “In light of the above, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act provides for jurisdiction before Kanakapura Court and rejecting the application by the Trial Court is not justifiable as the Bangalore City Civil Court, where petition is filed lacks jurisdiction and the proper Court where the petition needs to be filed is the Court of Kanakapura where the 5th respondent resides.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition and directed that “The XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-18) to return the petition filed under Section 52 read with 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 to the petitioner and the petitioner to file the petition before Kanakapura Court, which has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.”

Case Title: P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.42752 OF 2018

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

Date of Order: 10-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Abhinav R for petitioner.

Advocate G.V. Shashikumar FOR R-1 AND R-2.

Advocate Anagha Narasimha for Advocate P B Ajith FOR R-4