SIMRANPREET KAUR @ PREETI Vs. HARBANS SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is against the order of dismissal of the petition filed under Mental Health Act, 1987. The petition had been filed by the daughter against the father stating him as insane and seeking for inquisition. On the date of hearing, the Court had attempted to satisfy itself whether the person was insane or not by making questions. It is in question answer form that is reproduced as under:-

(2.) The Court has proceeded to observe that he found him to be fully capable of understanding matters and there was no necessity for ordering an inquisition or directing him to inquisition regarding his mental health by referring him to a medical board. It is against this order that the revision petition is filed.

(3.) Section 50 of the Mental Health Act allows for application for judicial inquisition to be filed by relative. There is no doubt in the fact that the petitioner is the daughter and it was competent to file the petition. On such petition being filed, Section 50(2) of the Act details the procedure that the Court will undertake. Section 50(2) allows for examination by the District Judge itself or any person whom how the District Court may call for report concerning the mentally ill person. This Section, therefore, contemplates any enquiry by the court itself and it is also competent to refer the concerned person to any other person to bring a report. The Court has undertaken what was possible for it to do and has posed questions to defendant No.1-Harbans Singh and has found him to be fully possessed of faculties. It is in the subjective satisfaction of the Court that the issue of whether a person could be sent for further examination or not. The power is put in the hands of District Judge under the Act only because the Act proposes it as an important exercise to be vested in the hands of a reasonably senior judicial officer.