IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that a party's mental capacity must be established with clear evidence before appointing a Next Friend or referring to a Medical Board.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner filed O.P.No.447/2020 before the learned Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, against the 1st respondent herein, seeking that the marriage of her deceased brother with the latter be annulled; with a consequential declaration that all the amounts standing in the account of her deceased brother with the respondent – banks, is hers alone, as the sole legal heir consequent to his death.

2. The specific case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent herein is a person of unsound mind; and this is, admittedly, the leitmotif of the assertions in the Original Petition also. She, thereupon, filed an application under Order XXXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking an enquiry into the mental status of the 1st respondent and for the appointment of a Next Friend for her, impelling the contention that she is unable to take care of her interest, while defending in the Original Petition.

3. While so, the Original Petition was transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur, and renumbered as OP No.1200/2022.

4. The learned Family Court, Thrissur, considered the afore interim application and conducted an enquiry under the provisions of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC, to find that the 1st respondent has no mental infirmity and that she is capable of defending the Suit herself, particularly because she is an educated person – having studied up to Plus Two and undergone the first year of Degree, but without completing the course. The learned Court has also found that the 1st respondent had offered evidence in an earlier Original Petition, namely O.P.No.780/2015, which, prima facie, establishes her capacity to defend herself; and therefore, that the further prayer of the petitioner, that the said respondent be referred to a Medical Board – for which she has filed the application in question - is untenable.

5. This order has been challenged by the petitioner before us.

6. Sri.Ajith Viswanathan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that, when it is established through germane materials, including Ext.P8 Police records, that the 1st respondent is suffering from mental illness, the learned Trial Court ought to have referred her to a Medical Board, as part of the enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC. He argued that the refusal of the Trial Court to have done so, vitiates the entire proceedings; and hence that his client has been constrained to approach this Court against the order assailed.

7. In response, however, Sri.C.Dheeraj Rajan - appearing for the respondents, pointed out that, even if any reliance is to be placed on Ext.P8 – asserting that it cannot be – the only aspect that can be possibly seen therefrom, but not established, is that his client had been suffering from tension on account of various unfortunate events in her life, including matrimonial disputes. He argued that, even if it is assumed that his client was taking some medication for that, unless it is established that she is suffering from a mental infirmity - thus rendering her incapable of defending the Original Petition - no Next Friend can be appointed for her against her wishes. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed, pointing out that the learned Trial Court has conducted the statutory enquiry as per law, to find that his client is without any such disability or infirmity.

8. We have examined Ext.P6 and notice that the learned Family Court, admittedly, has conducted an enquiry as aforesaid, which is a statutory sine qua non. During such enquiry, the statement of the 1st respondent is seen to have been recorded and she informed the Court that she has completed Plus Two, but could not complete graduation, though having pursued its first year. The learned Trial Court has then recorded that the 1st respondent understood all the questions and issues put to her; and thus concluded that she is, therefore, capable of defending herself, particularly because the medical records produced do not even indicate that