Procedure To Follow When Party’s Mental Capacity Is Questioned In Judicial Proceedings: Supreme Court Points Out Lack Of Statutory Framework
The Supreme Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned judgment upholding an order of the Family Court.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
While observing that the Mental Healthcare Act, akin to the Code of Civil Procedure, doesn’t prescribe a procedure to be followed when a question of a party’s mental capacity arises in judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court has said that the legislature should devise a relevant framework in this regard.
The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an appeal against the order of the Family Court rejecting the plea for divorce.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “Pertinently, even this Act, akin to the CPC, does not prescribe a procedure to be followed when the question of a party’s mental capacity arises in judicial proceedings. Section 105 requires proof of such illness to be furnished and consequently provides for its verification. It is silent on the process to be followed in the absence thereof.”
“As discussed above, the statutory scheme is silent on the procedure to be followed. It is the need of the hour that the legislature devises a relevant framework in this regard”, it added.
Advocate Varun Singh represented the Appellant while Amicus Curiae Rohini Narayanan represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the appellant and respondent was solemnized in May 1987. A child was born out of the wedlock. The couple remained together for approximately 8 years and separated sometime in the year 1995. The appellant alleged that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Varanasi, seeking the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The matter was referred to mediation, however, the same remained unsuccessful. In January, 1996, the respondent filed an application seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Family Court awarded Rs 400 per month to the wife and Rs 200 per month towards the child. The Family Court dismissed the appellant’s petition for grant of divorce. It was observed that cruelty on the part of the respondent remained unproved. The appellant brought to the Court’s notice the parties during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant entered into a written compromise for grant of divorce.
The appellant filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, praying for grant of divorce on the basis of the terms of the compromise. The High Court then directed the Family Court, Varanasi to verify the compromise and submit a report accordingly. The appellant claimed that the respondent did not appear before the Court and accordingly, the compromise could not be verified.The High Court then passed the impugned order dismissing the appeal of the appellant.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, explained that Order XXXII of the CPC deals with ‘Suits by or against Minors and Persons of Unsound Mind’. Rule 1 provides for institution of a suit by a minor, in the name of a person who is his next friend. Rule 3 thereof provides for appointment of a guardian wherein the defendant is a minor.
Considering that mental health illnesses or issues are part of the daily lives of a considerable portion of the population, the Bench held that it is incumbent upon Courts not to permit the use of allegations of mental health of the opposite party as an attempt to marginalise, discredit, malign or obstruct the opposite party.
“Consequently, the natural corollary of the existence of a mental health illness or issue cannot automatically be that the person is unfit to participate in judicial proceedings or understand the consequences of such proceedings, in the absence of a report by a mental health expert/board, in accordance with law. A time bound enquiry by the relevant experts is a must in such circumstances”, it added.
Refusing to accept the appellant’s plea that divorce be granted in the absence of the respondent, at this stage, the Bench directed the State Mental Health Authority, Uttar Pradesh to facilitate an expert/team of experts, with the assistance of the District Legal Services Authority and State Police, to visit the residence of the Respondent to interact with the respondent and the family members. The Bench further directed the Authority to ascertain her physical and mental condition and file a report.
Cause Title: AB v. CD (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 824)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocate Varun Singh, AOR Nitin Saluja, Advocates Bhumi Sharma, Parijat, Urvashi Chauhan, Sidhant Dhingra
Respondent: Amicus Curiae Rohini Narayanan