IN CRL. REV. P. 30 OF 2023 - DEL HC- The mandatory nature of Sec 105 of Mental Health Care Act does not leave any discretion with Courts to prejudge the claim of mental illness as claimed during judicial process, Courts shall refer the same to the Board concerned: Delhi High Court
Justice Amit Sharma [13.07.2023]

Read More: Ankur Abbot v. Ekta Abbot

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 14, 2023: The Delhi High Court stated that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 was a special law that overrides other laws in accordance with Section 120 of the said Act. In reference to Section 105, if a party claimed mental illness during a judicial process, the Court shall refer the matter to a board for further scrutiny. The word 'shall' in this context was mandatory, the High Court held. 

The Court made the observations while setting aside orders passed by lower courts in Delhi directing the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month to the respondent, i.e., his estranged wife, and their minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act till its final disposal.  The High Court held that the Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account the report of the Cosmos Institute of Mental Health and Behavioral Sciences (CIMBS) which stated that the present petitioner suffered from “Bipolar Affective Disorder, Currently Moderate Depressive Episode”.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma stated that “The purpose of Section 105 of the said Act is only with respect to an enquiry with regard to a person alleged to have a mental illness or not. The aforesaid provision creates a statutory right in favour of any person who claims to have mental illness as provided for under Section 2(s) of the said Act. The mandatory nature of the said provision does not leave any discretion with the competent Court, in case such a claim is made during judicial process pending before it. The mandate of the Section is that, in case of such a claim, the competent Court shall refer the same to the concerned Board as provided for in the said Section. The Competent Court cannot prejudge the said claim before making appropriate directions under the said Section.”

The Bench further stated that “Section 105 of the said Act creates a right in favor of a person who claims to suffer from mental illness as defined under Section 2(s) of the said Act. The present petitioner claims to be suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, depression and anxiety. So far as the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent with regard to the fact that the petitioner did not raise the issue of his mental illness to in any other prior proceedings pending before the parties cannot act as an estoppel with regard to his statutory right as provided for in the said Act.”

The MM Manila Court, in an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) directed the present petitioner, Ankur Abbot, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month to the respondent and their minor daughter as maintenance under Section 12 of the DV Act till its final disposal which was challenged before the Sessions Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Ankur claimed that he suffered from Bipolar Affective Disorder and other mental illnesses and was therefore exempt from appearing before the Court under Section 105 and 116 of Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. However, the MM rejected his claims citing lack of proper medical documents and his ability to appear before other Court proceedings and issued warrant of arrest against him. The aforesaid order was challenged by him before the ASJ, whereby, the aforesaid appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the ASJ and the MM, petitioner preferred the present revision petition.

The Court observed that while Ankur had submitted reports indicating Bipolar Disorder from 2013 onwards, but both the MM as well as the ASJ relied only on a 2022 report from a Family Physician and Gynaecologist with respect to his health condition of acute gastroenteritis with repeated vomiting, diarrhoea, weakness and anxiety annexed with the application moved for exemption on behalf of the petitioner on 28.10.2022 and noted that Section 105 did not specify requirements for proof of mental illness.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the petition and set aside both lower Court’s orders and directed Ankur to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to assess his claimed mental illness as per Section 105 of the Act. The court clarified that such an assessment would not prejudice Ekta's legal rights.