Mental Illness to be medically proven before Appointment of Guardian

MS Nadar alias Subramaniya Nadar vs. S Saraswathi

Filed Under: Order 32 and Rule 15, Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908)
Appellant: MS Nadar alias Subramaniya Nadar
Respondent: S Saraswathi
Citation: 1997 AIHC 3675
Court: In the High Court of Madras
Judge: AR Lakshmanan

Facts

Al. Shanmugam filed a case against Subramaniya, asking for partition of a property into two equal shares one of which was to be allotted to him. During the trial of this case he was examined as a witness. Once the chief-examination was over, Shanmugam was cross-examined. Several questions were put to him and even though he answered them correctly he took a long time in answering them and later he was unable to answer some of the questions.

His lawyer then stated that he was not answering questions properly and the lawyer of the other party also agreed with him. The trial judge made an endorsement on paper that both the lawyers agreed to dispense with the examination of Shanmugam and somebody else should be examined on his behalf. The case was then adjourned for another date.

In the meantime, Shanmugam set up his wife, Saraswathi as his guardian and filed an application praying for appointment of a guardian for him on the ground that he was not mentally sound. In response to this, Subramaniya filed a counter against the application contending that the application filed by Shanmugam was not maintainable and the allegation that he was mentally unsound was false. The Trial Judge however allowed the application and appointed Saraswathi as Shanmugam’s guardian. Aggrieved by this decision of the Trial Court, Subramaniya, filed this appeal.

Arguments made on behalf of Subramaniya

Subramaniya’s lawyer contented that the order passed by the Trial Court was not maintainable. According to him, Shanmugam had been contesting the case since 1983 and had also sworn to several affidavits. According to the lawyer, Shanmugam had been successfully examined but when he had found that, the evidence was not in his favor he had deliberately devised a plan to undermine his evidence by filing an application for appointment of a guardian.

It was further argued that the Lower Court had failed to take this into account and just because Shanmugam had taken more time in answering each question it could not be said that he was suffering from mental infirmity. Furthermore, the Lower Court had not referred to any medical opinion with respect to his mental status.

Arguments made on behalf of Shanmugam

Shanmugam’s lawyer contended that the finding rendered by the Lower Court was based on the opinion given by the lawyers of both the parties and in such circumstances there was no need to refer Shanmugam for a medical examination.

Observations of the Court

The Court examined the arguments given by both the parties and also referred to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. According to the Court, the Lower Court had made a serious error in passing the order. The Court further observed that merely because Shanmugam had taken more time to answer a question during cross-examination, it could not concluded that he was mentally unsound.

The Lower Court should have considered that it could be Shanmugam’s inability to face the cross-examination that could have led to this delay in answering questions. In the absence of any medical certificate the Court could not have passed the order of guardianship.

In light of these circumstances the Court referred Shanmugam’s case to the Superintendent of the Government Hospital, Trichy, to medically examine him in order to find out whether he was of unsound mind and to submit this report to the Lower Court. On the receipt of this report the Lower Court would proceed according to the relevant sections of the CPC. Accordingly the order passed by the Lower Court was set aside and the petition was allowed.

Sections Referred:

Cases Referred:

  • Rami Reddy vs. Papi Reddy, AIR 1963 AP 160

Top

Smt. Sunita Sajnani vs. Ratan Kumar

Filed Under: Order 23 R. 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure
Appellant: Smt.Sunita Sajnani
Respondent: Ratan Kumar
Citation: 1995 AIHC 440
Court: In the High Court of Rajasthan
Judges: Gokal Chand Mital & N.K.Jain

Facts

Ratan Kumar had filed a petition for annulment of the marriage with his wife Sunita Sajnani on the ground that she was suffering from schizophrenia and therefore was a person of unsound mind. Sunita pleaded that she was of sound mind and the allegation leveled against her by her husband was false. After the trial proceedings commenced, Ratan made an application for appointment of a guardian for his wife since she was of unsound mind. Sunita however continued to contest Ratan’s claim.

While that application was under consideration in the Family Court, Ratan made an application for withdrawal of the petition for annulment of the marriage, and to file a fresh petition. The Family Court allowed that application without giving any reasons and granted permission to file a fresh one. Aggrieved, Sunita filed the present appeal.Arguments made on behalf of Subramaniya

Subramaniya’s lawyer contented that the order passed by the Trial Court was not maintainable. According to him, Shanmugam had been contesting the case since 1983 and had also sworn to several affidavits. According to the lawyer, Shanmugam had been successfully examined but when he had found that, the evidence was not in his favor he had deliberately devised a plan to undermine his evidence by filing an application for appointment of a guardian.

It was further argued that the Lower Court had failed to take this into account and just because Shanmugam had taken more time in answering each question it could not be said that he was suffering from mental infirmity. Furthermore, the Lower Court had not referred to any medical opinion with respect to his mental status.

Observations of the Court

After considering the facts of the case, the Court was of the opinion that the question of appointment of a guardian would arise only after enquiry and only when the Court had recorded a finding that the person was of unsound mind. The Court also referred to the case cited by Sunita where on appeal the order of the lower Court passed without conducting proper enquiry was set aside.

Therefore, in this case, the Court set aside the order of the Family Court and directed it to conduct the enquiry as to whether she is of sound mind or not and then decide on the application for appointment of guardian and also ordered to dismiss the fresh petition that was filed. Further, the Court also ordered Rs.1,000/- as costs to the wife to be paid within 2 months.

Sections Referrred:

  • Order 23R.1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code

Cases Referred:

  • Tirtha Pradhan vs. Balabhadra Pradhan, A/R 1993 Orissa 50

Top