The suitability of a person to be appointed as a manager of the properties of a mentally ill person under the Mental Health Act, 1987 is determined based on their conduct and ongoing litigations.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

CM Appl. No. 38285/2017 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

FAO No. 411/2017

1. This first appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 9.6.2017 by which the trial court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant under the Mental Health Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for appointment of the appellant as the guardian to take care of the person and property of Sh. Binu Seth. Sh. Binu Seth is the husband of the appellant and is living with the respondent nos. 2 & 3 who are the mother and brother of Sh. Binu Seth. Sh. Binu Seth has been arrayed as respondent no. 1 in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the subject petition in the court below praying for relief of holding judicial inquisition quamental condition of her husband Sh. Binu Seth/respondent no. 1 and for further prayer of the appointment of the appellant as the guardian of the person and properties of Sh. Binu Seth. Effectively, the reliefs when read holistically would mean that the appellant pleads that the respondent no.1 is a mentally ill person as defined under the Mental Health Act, 1987 and therefore judicial inquisition proceedings be conducted in terms of Section 50 of the Act and thereafter the appellant be appointed as the Manager of the person and properties of the respondent no. 1.

3. Appellant was married to the respondent no.1 on 27.4.2002 in Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and she lived with her husband till 1.5.2011. It was pleaded by the appellant in her petition that she thereafter left the company of the respondent no. 1 herein due to adverse circumstances created by respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein. It was pleaded in the petition by the appellant that respondent no. 1 is a patient of mental disorder and that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 are keeping away the respondent no. 1 and not allowing the appellant to take care of respondent no. 1 including getting his medical treatment done. It is pleaded in the petition by the appellant that the respondent nos. 2 & 3 want to usurp the entire joint family properties, including the share of respondent no. 1/Binu Seth and respondent no. 1/Sh. Binu Seth is in dire need of appointment of guardian of his person as well as his properties.

4. In the joint written statement filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 herein before the trial court it was pleaded that the respondent no. 1 is not a mentally ill person as defined in Section 2(l) of the Act. It was also pleaded that the respondent no.1 never desired that any treatment be got done of the alleged mental illness of the respondent no. 1. It was further pleaded that there is no property movable or immovable exclusively in the name of the respondent no. 1. It was further pleaded that appellant had filed a petition for divorce against the respondent no. 1 on the basis of false and concocted allegations of cruelty; and that such divorce petition was later on dismissed as withdrawn on 13.10.2011 because appellant could not prove the truthfulness of her false allegations against the respondent no. 1. Respondent nos. 2 & 3 pleaded by their written statement that the petition was only filed to harass the respondents and therefore the petition be dismissed.

5. By the impugned judgment trial court has dismissed the petition by arriving at two conclusions. The first conclusion is that Sh. Binu Seth/respondent no.1 as per the report given by Board of Institute of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences (IHBAS) is able to take care of himself independently but cannot take care of his properties. Trial court has also observed that respondent no. 1 was examined in person by the trial court and during this examination he answered to all the questions which were put to him very well without any hesitation and respondent no.1 behaved normally. Trial court held that even if it is assumed that there are joint fami