The Karnataka High Court has passed a judgment on 2nd March, 2023 clarifying when a person is suffering from mental illness and is possessed with property, an application for holding an inquisition into the mental condition of such person may be made by either of the relatives before the District Courts within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides as stated under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act. This was in the case of P S Leelavathi v. N Ravi Shankar & others (WRIT PETITION NO.42752 OF 2018) and this is presided over by a single judge bench of JUSTICE K S Hemalekha.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
This writ petition is filed under article 227 of the constitution of India. N. Ravishankar and Ms. Kalpana Govindraj (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein) under Section 52 read with Section 50 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 to hold inquisition regarding the mental illness of the 5th respondent herein – M.K. Jayalakshmi and to appoint the respondent Nos.1 and 2 as joint managers insofar as the 5th respondent’s undivided rights, title and interest in the schedule properties. This being so, I.A.No.V was filed by the 2 nd respondent/petitioner herein invoking the provisions of Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Order VII Rule 10 of CPC seeking to return the petition to the petitioner on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Sri. Abhinav .R, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that “the Trial Court has not properly considered Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act, which clearly states that the jurisdiction to entertain the petition would be on the basis where the mentally ill person is residing and not where the property is situated and would take this Court to the provisions of Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act and stating these grounds, sought to allow the writ petition.”
JUDGEMENT:
The Court held that “A careful perusal of said section makes it clear that when the person is suffering from mental illness and is possessed with the property, an application for holding an inquisition into the mental condition of such person may be made by either of the relatives before the District Courts within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the alleged mentally ill person resides as stated under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act. It is clear that the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 50 (1) (d) of the Mental Health Act provides for jurisdiction before Kanakapura Court and rejecting the application by the Trial Court is not justifiable as the Bangalore City Civil Court, where Misc. No.499/2016 is filed lacks jurisdiction and the proper Court where the petition needs to be filed is the Court of Kanakapura where the 5th respondent resides.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA
click here to view your judgement
