The court upheld the Family Court's order appointing the son as next friend, affirming that the enquiry met statutory requirements despite the absence of a formal medical evaluation.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court, Kasargod, which allowed I.A.No.1/2024 in O.P.No.557/2024.

2. The above mentioned Original Petition was filed by the respondent - the wife of the petitioner – seeking that the latter be directed to pay her Rs.36 lakhs as arrears of past maintenance; and also maintenance at the rate of Rs.1 lakh from 03.06.2021 to 03.06.2024. Along with the Original Petition, she filed I.A.No.1/2024 saying that she has mental infirmity, thus being unable to take care of her redress and praying that her son be appointed as her next friend.

3. The learned Family Court conducted an enquiry within the ambit of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to issue the impugned order, appointing the son as the next friend; and this order is under challenge by the petitioner before us.

4. Sri.Shaju Purushothaman.M - learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued that the enquiry as necessary under statutory scheme had not been conducted by the Court before finding the respondent to be incapable of taking care of her interests; and he relied upon Ext.P4 statement of hers, recorded by the Court, to argue that it would render it inevitable that she is a person of full capacity and capability - both physically and mentally. He then argued that the appointment of the son as a next friend was also impermissible because, he has a vested interest in his mother's affairs; and thus that the impugned order is untenable.

5. In response, however, Sri.Sukarnan – appearing for the respondent, submitted that the enquiry conducted by the Court further answers and confirms the requirements of Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC because, the statement of the respondent was recorded by it, as evident from Ext.P4. He pointed out that, as evident from Ext.P5 order itself, the learned Court found the respondent to be unable to answer the queries properly and to be very tense, which he asserted was because she is suffering from Bipolar Depression, thus under treatment as manifest from Ext.P6 certificate. He then argued that the contention, that the son cannot be appointed as a next friend of the mother because he has a vested interest, is wholly untenable because she is being taken care of by him, thus being the only person who can represent her effectively. He thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

6. It is ineluctable from the afore narrative of facts and contentions that, there are two broad issues involved in this case: namely (a) whether the enquiry conducted by the learned Family Court, to appoint a next friend for the petitioner, was properly done; and (b) whether the son of the respondent could have been appointed as a next friend, or someone else.

7. On the first limb, we see from the records that the learned court was considering an application filed by the respondent herself, wherein, she averred that she is not keeping well and is unable to take care of her interests, hence requiring a next friend. The Court did not accept that application mechanically, but took a statement of the respondent, as discernible from Ext.P4, to then record that she was very tensed and unable to respond to the queries properly. The learned Court also considered the impact of Ext.P6 Medical Certificate issued by a doctor, wherein, it is recorded that she is suffering from Bipolar Depression and is under treatment from July 2023.

8. We must say that we are in approval of the holdings of the learned Court and cannot find the enquiry conducted by it, to be insufficient with the requirements of order XXXII, Rule 15 of the C.P.C.

9. We are persuaded to this view because, as we have said above, the respondent’s statement was taken by the Court; and when it was found that she was very tensed and unable to respond properly, there can be no further conclusion than that she requires assistance. For this, we are not inclined to hold that a medical evaluation was necessary, as has been now