Back
AMIT SHARMA
Ankur Abbot – Appellant
Versus
Ekta Abbot – Respondent
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') seeks setting aside of the order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 02, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal bearing No. 302/2022, whereby the appeal preferred by the present petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 28.10.2022, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court -05, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, was upheld.
BACKGROUND
2. On 31.03.2022, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-05, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, in an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act') bearing number MC No. 79/2017, titled 'Ekta Abbot Vs. Ankur Abbot' directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/-per month to the respondent herein and their minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act till its final disposal. The said order was challenged by the petitioner vide Criminal Appeal No. 114/2022, before the learned Sessions Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2.1. The respon
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of referring proof of mental illness for further scrutiny to the concerned Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Ac....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Competent Court is mandated to follow the procedure laid down in Section 105 of the 2017 Act if a claim of mental illness is made before i....
Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is a protective mechanism for persons with mental illness, not invocable by litigants to challenge adversary's capacity in ongoing civil disputes; requires ....
Point of Law : Section 105 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 deals with procedure to be followed in a judicial process where any proof of mental illness of a person is produced.
Insanity defense must be substantiated by adequate evidence of unsoundness at the time of offense; mere assertion is insufficient to shift the burden of proof.
Failure to follow the prescribed procedure for cases involving mental illness, as laid down in Section 329 of the Code and Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, can vitiate a trial.
The court established that individuals with severe dementia are entitled to legal protections ensuring their capacity to defend themselves in criminal proceedings.
The court established that individuals deemed mentally unfit cannot be tried, emphasizing the need for appropriate medical evaluation and treatment before any legal proceedings.
Accused's fitness to stand trial must be thoroughly examined, ensuring compliance with procedural requirements while allowing opportunity for defense representation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
