FAO No. 411/2017 Page 1 of 15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO No. 411/2017

%

27^th October, 2017

MEENU SETH

..... Appellant

Through:

Ms. Gauri Gupta, Advocate.

versus

BINU SETH & ORS.

..... Respondents

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

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

FAO No. 411/2017 Page 2 of 15

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 qua mental 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

FAO No. 411/2017 Page 3 of 15

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

FAO No. 411/2017 Page 4 of 15

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 allegation