Kerala High Court
Sajeer K.A vs Rajeena on 12 April, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 4050 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 IN Crl.M.P Nos.26/2022 &
27/2022 in Crl.M.P. No.206/2018 in MC NO.46 OF 2013 OF
FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
SAJEER K.A
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O K.S.ABDUL SALAM,
ARANGATH CROSS ROAD,
PULLEPADI, ERNAKULAM,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O MEERAN SAHIB,
RETD. SALES TAX ASHIYANA,
ALATHUR, KODUNTHIRAPPALLY,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 004,
REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND
KHADEEJA SALAM,
AGED 79, W/O K.S.ABDUL SALAM,
ARANGATH CROSS ROAD,
PULLEPADI, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
SRI.P.A.REJIMON
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & STATE:
1 RAJEENA
AGED 44 YEARS, D/O ABDUL RAHEEM,
M.K APARTMENT,
POOLAKKADU, NURANI P.O,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Crl.M.C. No.4050/23 -:2:-
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY
SMT.MAYA C.P.
SMT.VIJINA K.
SRI.ARUL MURALIDHARAN
SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.04.2024, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C. No.4050/23 -:3:-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------
Crl.M.C No.4050 of 2023
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
ORDER
Faced with orders directing payment of maintenance to his
divorced wife and child, petitioner had been evading the payment.
Subsequently, petitioner was arrested pursuant to distress warrants,
and after payment of a portion of the amount of maintenance due, he
was released. Even thereafter, petitioner continued to avoid payment
of the maintenance amounts ordered.
2. In the meanwhile, a contention was advanced that petitioner
is suffering from a mental illness and requires the appointment of a
guardian to prosecute the case. Petitioner also sought for an enquiry
regarding his unsoundness of mind. Crl.M.P No.26/2022 and
Crl.M.P No. 27/2022 were filed by the petitioner for the above
purposes. By the impugned order, the Family Court, Palakkad
dismissed both the applications and hence the present challenge.
3. There is a chequered history to the case starting from M.C.
No.6/2000 filed by the wife and child before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Palakkad wherein an amount of Rs.500/- was ordered as
maintenance. Later, the quantum was enhanced to Rs.1,000/- in
2007, to Rs.2,500/- in 2013 and to Rs.10,000/- in 2018. As the minor
child had attained majority in the meantime, the claim was restricted
to the former wife alone. Since the factual details have been
narrated in extenso in the impugned order, this Court is not
reiterating those circumstances; suffice to state that pursuant to the
direction of this Court in Crl.M.C. No.1636/2019, the Family Court re-
considered Crl.M.P No.26/2022 and Crl.M.P No.27/2022 and
directed a Medical Board to be constituted by the Government
Medical College, Kalamassery, Ernakulam.
4. The Medical Board assessed the mental condition of the
petitioner and opined that petitioner has psychological symptoms that
are suggestive of post-traumatic stress disorder. One of the Doctors
that constituted the Medical Board was examined as a witness before
the Family Court. Thereafter, the Family Court came to the
conclusion that the contention of the petitioner herein, that he is
suffering from a mental disorder, is only a gimmick to escape the
liability for payment of arrears of maintenance. The Family Court
also noticed that there was neither any family history of mental illness
nor any material to show that the petitioner had ever undergone
treatment in any hospital to justify his claim for any type of mental
illness.
5. I have heard Sri. Joseph George, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, Sri. Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the
respondent as well as Smt.V. Sreeja, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. Petitioner is under an obligation to pay maintenance to his
wife, which he has been evading for the last several years. Whatever
has been paid is only a pittance, and finally, when Crl.M.P.
No.206/2018 was filed, petitioner sought the appointment of a
guardian to prosecute the case and also to conduct an enquiry
regarding his unsoundness of mind. The Medical Board opined that
the petitioner is diagnosed as having post-traumatic stress disorder.
However, neither in the report of the Medical Board nor in the
evidence of the Doctor who was examined in court is there any
reference that the petitioner is incapable of carrying out his day-to-
day activities. There is no evidence of any nature showing that the
petitioner was subjected to any treatment for mental illness at any
time, though there is an allegation that the petitioner had consulted
Doctors at Kusumagiri Mental Hospital.
7. As per section 2(s) of the Mental Health Act, 2017 'mental
illness' means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception,
orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour,
capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands
of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and
drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of
arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially
characterised by subnormality of intelligence. The report of the
Medical Board, after examining the petitioner and the oral evidence
of the doctor, does not reveal that the petitioner's alleged mental
condition is indicative of any substantial disorder to the extent of
depriving him of the ability to understand and carry out the normal
day to day life or meet the ordinary demands of life. There is nothing
to indicate that the alleged post-traumatic stress disorder is an illness
that has impaired the judgment, behaviour, or the capacity to
recognise reality. Thus, there are no materials to indicate that the
petitioner is suffering from any substantial disorder or any illness
which interferes with his normal functioning.
8. In this context, it is necessary to mention that till 2018, the
petitioner had never raised any contention regarding his mental
illness. Petitioner had, in the meantime, remarried and even has a
child through the second marriage, which also indicates that the
petitioner is able to function normally. The attempt of the petitioner to
rely upon post-traumatic stress disorder as a mental illness to avoid
the liability for payment of maintenance is untenable. This Court
endorses the observation of the Trial Court that the petitioner's claim
of mental disorder is only a gimmick to escape the liability for
payment of arrears of maintenance.
9. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court, Palakkad.
Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is dismissed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
APPENDIX
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A-1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 03-04-2014
IN M.C 46/2013 OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY
COURT PALAKKAD
Annexure A-2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CRL. M.P NO: 26/2022
OF THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD
Annexure A-3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CRL. M.P NO: 27/2022
OF THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD
Annexure A-4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10-02-2022 IN CRL. M.C NO: 1636/2019 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Annexure A-5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PSYCHIATRY
ASSESSMENT REPORT DATED 27-01-2023
PREPARED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD
CONSTITUTED AT GOVERNMENT MEDICAL
COLLEGE ERNAKULAM
Annexure A-6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
31-03-2023 IN CRL. M.P NOS 26 & 27/2022
IN CRL. M.P NO: 206/2018 IN M.C NO:
46/2013 OF THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD
Annexure A-7 CERTIFIED COPY OF DEPOSITION OF PW-1 IN
CRL. M.P NO: 208/2018 IN M.C NO:46/2013
OF THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD
