The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated

17-06-2019 passed by the LXV Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.1497 of 2017

affirming the order dated 12-06-2017 passed by the LVI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 598 of 2017 whereby the

two Courts have declined to accept the plea of the

petitioner that his wife/respondent has to be subjected

to the rigours of Section 20 of the Mental Health Act,

1987 (8the Act9 for short).

2. Heard Sri M.V.Hiremath, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.C.Chethan,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as

follows:-

The

petitioner

is

the

husband

of

the

respondent/wife. The marriage between the petitioner

and the respondent takes place on 5-09-1991 at

Bangalore and after their marriage the couple having

shifted to USA and becoming citizens of USA are staying

there for the last 27 years. The couple also has a son

aged 23 years and a daughter aged 12 years. On the

relationship

of

the

couple

getting

strained,

the

respondent/wife is presently residing at Bangalore now.

The parties are also before the family Court in a petition

filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage

with the wife. The present proceeding does not concern

the case about annulment of marriage.

4. The petitioner files criminal miscellaneous case

in Criminal Miscellaneous No.598 of 2017 before the

4

trial Court invoking Section 20(1)(b) and (3) of the Act

read with Rule 25(2)(A) of the said Mental Health Rules,

1990. What the petitioner seeks is a reception order to

facilitate admission and detention of the alleged

mentally unsound wife initially for a period of 30 days in

a

Psychiatric

Hospital

for

medical

psychiatric

examination and a report thereto. The said Criminal

Miscellaneous case No.598 of 2017 is rejected by the

learned Magistrate by his order dated 12.06.2017

declining to accept that there is immediate threat to the

life of the wife of the petitioner due to her mental status

and it was opined that there is no need to pass an order

of reception as was sought for. This order of the learned

Magistrate is called in question by the petitioner before

the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.1497

of 2017. The learned Sessions Judge, after analyzing the

submissions and the order impugned before him, has

dismissed the appeal. Both these orders are called in

question by the petitioner in this criminal petition.

5

5.

The

learned

counsel

Sri

M.V.Hiremath

appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue

and contend that the state of mind of the wife is

precarious and she needs urgent psychiatric treatment,

but would also admit that there was no problem for 27

years for the petitioner to live with her.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel

representing the respondent would vehemently refute

the submissions and contends that for 27 years there

was no problem between the couple, but the petitioner

wants to now brand the wife as mentally unsound and

to place such material before the Court where he is

seeking annulment of marriage. He would submit that

mala fide intention of the petitioner in filing the criminal

miscellaneous case and appeal thereto, have been

rightly rejected by both the Courts and as such, they do

not warrant interference at the hands of this Court.

6

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel

and perused the material on record.

8. The marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent taking place on 05-09-1991 is not in

dispute. The petitioner is before the family Court

seeking annulment of his marriage with the respondent

is also not in dispute. The petitioner and the respondent

lived together for close to 27 years without any problem

is also not in dispute as there are no documents

produced with regard to bouts of mental disorder of