PARMINDER SINGH Vs. GURDIAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of FAO No. 7534 of 2014, vide which the present appellant (respondent before the lower Court) has challenged the judgment dated 31.3.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which application of the respondent herein (petitioner before the lower Court) under Sections 50 and 52 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 (in short 'the Act') was allowed and respondent herein (petitioner before the lower Court) was appointed as a Guardian and Manager of the property of appellant after holding that the present appellant (respondent before the lower Court) is mentally ill person and incapable of taking care of himself as well as his property.

(2.) DR . Gurdial Singh, respondent/petitioner, who happens to be the father of present appellant, had claimed in his application before the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, that he has got two sons and one daughter. His elder son Parminder Singh Chhina alias Peter Chhina (appellant in the present appeal) is suffering from the mental illness. It was stated that he was suffering from paranoid schizophernia. It was further averred that the present appellant/respondent had gone to USA in 1979. Respondent/petitioner as well as his wife Dr. Mohinder Kaur, during their various visits to USA from years 1987 to 1991, made every effort to get the present appellant/respondent treated there, but he refused the treatment. As a result of which, he suffered financially and was in heavy debt in USA. Therefore, the respondent/petitioner asked the present appellant/respondent to come to India. The present appellant/respondent accordingly came to India in the year 2004 and remained admitted in Dr. V.S. Memorial Mental Health Research Institute (Old Government Mental Hospital) from 18.6.2004 to 2.8.2004 i.e. for 45 days. After his condition improved, the present appellant/respondent was discharged from the hospital for further treatment at home. However, the present appellant/respondent failed to take medication and follow -up treatment. On 19.4.2007, he entered the room of respondent/petitioner with a hired gunman and intimidated him (respondent herein) as well as his 86 years old bed ridden wife. A case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the said gunman. The present appellant/respondent had shown dangerous propensities, which showed that his mental condition was unstable. The respondent/petitioner being father of the present appellant is interested in the welfare of his son and has no adverse interest against him.

(3.) IN view of the persistent delusional state of the present appellant, the respondent/petitioner filed an application dated 24.7.2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, (in short 'the CJM') for taking his son in protection on account of his serious mental illness. The CJM, Chandigarh, ordered the admission of the present appellant in the psychiatric department as an indoor patient for observation and treatment. The present appellant/respondent remained under treatment from 25.7.2007 to 16.8.2007. It was asserted that the present appellant is mentally incapable of looking after his affairs and property. The present appellant/respondent has 1/3rd share and 1/5th share in SCO No. 40, Sector -26, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh and SCO No. 75, Sector 40 - C, Chandigarh, respectively. These properties were purchased by the petitioner/respondent and his wife and both the sons were given share in the said properties. The other son of the respondent/petitioner Narinder Pal Singh Chhina looks after all the properties. Both the SCOs are on rent. The rent is collected by Narinder Pal Singh Chhina through cheques and the share of the present appellant/ respondent is deposited in the bank account of the present appellant i.e. account No. 001301076484 with ICICI Bank. The share of the present appellant/respondent comes to Rs. 1,21,000/ -. The respondent/petitioner has provided residence and mess to the present appellant/respondent. The present appellant/respondent shares the electricity charges to the extent of his share.