The Kerala High Court has set aside two interim orders passed by the Family Court, Thalassery, which directed a wife and her minor child to undergo mental health evaluation during the pendency of their maintenance petition. The Court observed that such a direction served no purpose in proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The judgment was delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen in O.P. (Crl.) No. 101 of 2022, a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 7 February 2022 in M.C. No. 236 of 2020 on the file of the Family Court, Thalassery.
Background
The petitioners, a woman and her minor daughter, had filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the respondent, who is the husband and father respectively. During the proceedings, the Family Court referred the parties to counselling. Following the counselling session, the counsellor reported certain mental health symptoms concerning the petitioners.
Acting upon the report, the respondent filed C.M.P. No. 29 of 2022 seeking a direction for the petitioners to undergo medical examination before the District Medical Board at Kannur. The Family Court allowed the application and passed orders (Ext.P3 and Ext.P13) directing the petitioners to appear before the Medical Board and also instructed the respondent to arrange for transportation.
Arguments
The petitioners challenged the legality of the medical examination orders, contending that in a petition for maintenance, such a direction was irrelevant. Their counsel submitted that the only issue before the Family Court was whether the petitioners had the means to maintain themselves and whether the respondent had the capacity and obligation to provide for them.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the petition was filed only after the counsellor had flagged concerns regarding mental health, and hence, medical examination was justified. He also submitted his willingness to take back the petitioners and maintain them.
Court’s Observations
The High Court found the Family Court’s direction for mental evaluation of the petitioners to be unwarranted. Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“In a proceedings for maintenance, the point of consideration is; whether the petitioners are having means of maintenance by themselves, and the respondent is having the legal obligation, capacity, and income to maintain the claimants.”
The Court further noted:
“In such a case, merely acting on the report of the counsellor, when a petition was filed by the respondent, the petitioners’ medical board examination was ordered by the family court to ascertain their mental status. What is the purpose for getting such a report is not at all discernible.”
It was also emphasized that there had been no prior doubt about the petitioners’ mental health, even from the respondent who had lived with them. The Court concluded:
“In a proceedings for maintenance, there is no purpose in referring the petitioners for assessing their mental status to decide the question of maintenance.”
Decision
Allowing the original petition, the High Court set aside the impugned interim orders passed by the Family Court, holding them unnecessary. The Court also directed the Family Court, Thalassery, to expedite the disposal of M.C. No. 236 of 2020 on its merits within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.
Additionally, the Court permitted the Family Court to consider the respondent’s expressed willingness for reunion, provided both parties consent to such a course.
