Moti vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors.
on 7 December, 1987
FACTS:-
1. The accused was acquitted on 22-9-1976 on the ground of insanity
2. On the next year a report of Superintendent, Manovagyanic Chikitasalaya,
Jaipur Stated that ratania has been cured.
3. For some reason Ratania continued to be detained.
4. On the basis of order which was passes earlier .The district judge dismissed
Ratania application for release.
5. The competent authority which is state government has not passed any order.
6. The Collector , Chittorgarh wrote to the deputy secretary at aipur to realease
ratania some of his relatives takes responsibility to undertake his medical care and
treatment.
7. Due to the Technical delay correspondence between Collector and Government,
superintendent jail and Medical Authorities. Moti close relative of Ratnia failed to
release him. According to sec 335 and 338 Cr.PC, immediate orders were
expected from the concerned authorities.
OBSERVATION:-
The court observed that very chaotic condition is prevailing, More so when the liberty of citizens
is involved. An additional feature of the case that even the Medical Board appointed has not sent
the report so far to make the condition even worst. It is obvious that none of the functionaries
who so ever have considered this matter worth making any attempt what so ever and kept the
entire correspondence in cold storage and threw the communications it waste paper basket,
including that of the Collector concerned.
JUDGEMENT:-
The court ordered his immediate release without any condition in supersession of the order of the
bail passed earlier. We also direct Modi to take custody of Ramnia and get him medically
checked up .In case Ramnia get any fit of insanity the concerned authority can take action
against him cause it can become hazard to public health. The writ of habeas corpus petition is
accepted. The order of release will be send today by the office to all the concerned authority.
Ghulam Mohammad Khan vs Mst. Hasina on 16 July, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 J K 62
FACTS:-
1. The respondent wife brought a suit for dissolution of marriage before the trial
court against petitioner on the ground of potency.
2. On the same date court directed husband to get himself examined by the medical
board.
3. After defendant got medically examined the trial court summoned the medical
superintendent for examination whose presence could not be procured and another
order dated 24-5-1986 has been passed by the trial court directing the petitioner,
to get himself medically examined again.
4. A revision petition was filed by the defendant challenging the order 24-5-1986
before the court.
OBESERVATION:-
Whether a Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to compel a party to the
proceeding, to submit to medical examination ignoring privacy of a person and liberty to
give benefit to the other party as in the present proceedings? In my opinion, in the
absence of express provision under any law, the Court cannot exercise power
under Section 151, C.P.C. to order any party in proceeding to submit for medical
examination against his/her will. I am, in my view supported by a decision of Madras
High Court:-
N. Venkatachalapathy v. Saroja
“There is no provision under Hindu Marriage Act or the rules framed there under or in
the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Indian Evidence Act or any other law which would
show any power in the Court to compel any party to undergo medical examination”.
Ranganathan Chettiar v. Chinna Lakshmi Achi, “It has been held that it is not open
to the Court under Section 151 of the C.P.C. to order a medical examination of a party
against the consent of such party. To pass such an order is tantamount to treating a human
being as a material object, which no Court should do under its inherent power."
JUDGEMENT:-
The trial Court has no jurisdiction nor power under law, even under Section 151, C.P.C.
to order the petitioner to submit to medical examination. The learned trial Court has
committed an error by ordering the petitioner to submit to the medical examination.
Though the petitioner has once submitted to such examination and a certificate was
issued without proper appreciation of the certificate issued the trial Court inadvertently
and for want of legal knowledge issued a fresh direction to the petitioner which is without
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained under law. Revision petition is accepted and order
impugned dated 24-5-1986 of Munsiff, Chadoora, is set aside.
Mathew vs Devassykutty And Ors. on 20 October, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR 1988 Ker 315
FACTS:-
1. Poranchu diseased has left a will in favor of his son,2 daughters, wife and defendant’s
son.
2. The plaintiffs filed petition under Section 276 of the Succession Act, 1925 for the grant
of letters of administration.
3. The defendant filed a caveat opposing the petition The defendant-appellant contended
that the Will was invalid as the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of the
alleged execution of the Will
4. Counsel for the appellant, particularly the testimony of the doctor (DW 1), argued that the
testator did not have the mental capacity to execute the Will and the Will relied on by the
plaintiffs therefore, not valid.
5. Counsel for respondent, argued that defendant had been already well provided for by the
testator by transfer of properties to the defendant's son. Furthermore the Will shows that
the first plaintiff (the second son) had paid off debts incurred by the defendant (the first
son) and that had been taken note of by the testator. Furthermore, the extent of the
bequest made in favour of defendant’s son iis more than any other receiver.
6. Dr. C. K. Eapen DW 2 who is in charge of cardiology section of the hospital where the
testator was undergoing treatment for the cardiac problem to which he finally succumbed.
The doctor says that the treatment made the patient drowsy, but he was fully conscious.
7. Sub Registrar says that “poranchu was well aware of the contents and significance of the
Will which he executed on his own volition and the registration of which he sought”.
OBSERVATION:-
The court observed that on the basis of statement given by the Sub-Registrar PW 1, the doctor
DW 2 and other witnesses clearly shows that at the time of the execution of the Will as well as at
the time of giving instructions-in regard to the Will and the registration of the Will and at all
other matched times, the testator had full testamentary capacity in understanding the nature of his
act and other details of the property which he disposed and the persons who were the objects of
his bounty and their relationship to himself and their claims upon him. The Will was indeed the
result of his own intelligence.
JUDGEMENT:-
Considering the various circumstances of this case, particularly the fact that the testator, being
well aware of the seriousness of his cardiac problem, executed a Will at a time when he was fully
conscious of what he was doing, and of the earlier transfer of properties to the defendant's son
and of the melancholy fact that one of his daughters was deaf and dumb and the other daughter
lived far away as a nun and his own wife was about to be left behind, the Will on the face of it,
appears to us to be a rational and reasonable settlement of properties on the testator's and
children. Ungratefully, the defendant questions me generosity of his father. We see no merit in
this appeal. It is dismissed with costs throughout.
Sunil kumar v Jyotish alias meena
FACTS:-
1. The appellant filed the petition for dissolution of marriage
2. The further alleged that his wife is suffering from an incurable for of mental disorder he
could not reasonably expected to live with her.
3. According to him he and his family member came to be know that prior to her marriage
she was constantly getting undertreated by doctor in Ram Manohar Lohia New Delhi
hospital for a long time.
4. Due to these material facts she is incapable of managing herself and this relationship.
5. The wife argued that her husband is guilty of cruelty and discretion. She pleaded that she
was maltreated by her husband due to insufficient dowry.
6. She denied that she is suffering from mental disorder or is having treated by private
doctor in hospital.
7. She also alleged that her husband attempt to kill her when they were taken to Yamuna
river
8. In replication husband denied Yamuna incident.
9. Husband also pleaded that he has visited her wife house where he lay his hands on OPD
tickets.
Observation:-
By taking into account of statement of Dr. S Dayal P.W 3 stated that the husband himself
has accompanied his wife when she was getting examined whereas the husband stated that he has
secretly laid hands on OPD tickets. Even she conceived a child which was aborted on December
4, 1984 which could not be done without the consent of husband. Thus, argued by the id.
Counsel, there was no legal evidence to connect the OPD tickets with the wife as there was no
disease mentioned therein from which patient was suffering.
In other words, it must be proved in the first instance that the respondent is undergoing any
medical disorder and then it must be such a kind that the husband cannot be expected to live with
her. From the evidence on the record the husband has failed to prove the same by any cogent
evidence. Not only that, the offer made to the husband during the proceedings that she was
prepared to undergo any test proves her bona fide. In this situation the whole story put to end that
husband is false
Judgement:-
The husband has failed to prove the ingredients of S. 12 (1)(c) and S.13(1)(c) of the act. As
observed earlier In this case, the husband has failed to prove any sort of mental disorder of which
the wife could be said to be suffering from any type of mental disorder. Consequently this appeal
fails.
