Court Must Exercise Utmost Caution & Diligence To Ensure Protection Of Rights In Cases Involving Persons Of Unsound Mind: Telangana HC

The Telangana High Court emphasised that the Court must exercise utmost caution and diligence to ensure protection of rights in cases involving persons of unsound mind.

The Court emphasised thus in Civil Revision Petitions preferred against the Order of the Family Court.

A Single Bench of Justice K. Sujana observed, “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.”

The Bench said that the Court may compel the attendance of the alleged lunatic before it and direct them to submit to a medical examination.

Advocate Apurva M. Gokhale appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Senior Advocate B. Ganu appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Brief Facts -

The Petitioner and Respondent were husband and wife respectively. The Petitioner sought declaration, mandatory injunction, and perpetual injunction against the Respondent. The Respondent sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and mental insanity of the Petitioner. It was alleged by the Petitioner that the Trial Court failed to see that the Petition filed under Order XXXII Rule 2 read with Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) was neither maintainable in law nor on facts.

It was further alleged that the order of the Trial Court is illegal as there is no enquiry conducted before coming to conclusion that Petitioner is of unsound mind and the Order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the Respondent filed counter, denying averments and filed Application and Certificate issued by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, declaring the Petitioner as a person with mental illness since the year 2000 and appointed his father as his guardian.

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The Court's inquiry should not be limited to determining whether the person is of unsound mind but also extend to assessing the extent of their mental infirmity. Mental infirmity may arise from physical defects that render the person incapable of communicating their wishes or thoughts. However, the opinion of a medical expert is also relevant, it is not conclusive. The Court must consider all evidence presented, including the expert's opinion, to arrive at a decision.”

The Court further noted that the failure to conduct a judicial inquiry and adhere to the prescribed procedure may result in the person being improperly declared a lunatic.

“In such cases, the alleged lunatic may treat any decree passed against them as an ex parte decree and seek to have it set aside under Order IX, Rule 13 of C.P.C. The Court must exercise extreme caution when dealing with cases involving persons of unsound mind. 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”, it added.

The Court observed that the Court must conduct an inquiry to determine whether a person is of unsound mind before declaring them so and permitting a guardian to come on record and this is in accordance with Order XXXII, Rule 15 of CPC.

“The inquiry should include the examination of witnesses produced by either party, as well as the examination of the alleged person of unsound mind by the judge, either in open court or chambers. As such, decision to appoint the petitioner as guardian and next friend without conducting a proper inquiry was set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below to conduct a fresh inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 15 of C.P.C.”, it also said.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petitions and set aside the impugned Order.

Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ

Click here to read/download the Judgment