Recently, the bench of Delhi High Court has set aside an arrest warrant against a man, who is suffering from Bipolar Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression.

The wife of the sufferr filed an execution petition in relation to an order directing him to pay a maintenance of over Rs.1 lakh per month to her and their minor daughter under Domestic Violence Act.

According to the Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act -

if during any judicial process before any competent court, proof of mental illness is produced and is challenged by the other party, the Court shall refer the same for further scrutiny to the Mental Health Review Board, and the Board shall, after examination of the person alleged to have a mental illness either by itself or through a committee of experts, submits its opinion to the court.

During the Court hearing, the single-headed bench of Justice Amit Sharma said that, “the mandatory nature of the said provision (Section 105) 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.”

Case Brief -

In the said matter, the MM court has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month to his wife and their minor daughter from the date of filing of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act till its final disposal. 

Later, the wife of the petitioner filed an execution petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court.

Last year, in October, the man submits an application seeking exemption from personal appearance in the execution proceedings.

He submitted before the Court that he has a history of mental illnesses and the court's attention was drawn to Sections 105 and 116 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

Thereafter, the Metropolitan Magistrate issued warrants of arrest against him. His criminal appeal against the Metropolitan Magistrate's order was earlier dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge

Challenging the orders passed by the courts below, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the ASJ had ignored the reports of the mental illness issued by a certified psychiatrist.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the wife argued that the plea for exemption has been taken to frustrate her legal right and that of her minor daughter.

Justice Sharma in the verdict said that both the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge had declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 105 of the Act with respect to warrants of arrest against the petitioner.

“Both the learned Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not take into account the aforesaid report of CIMBS, dated 16.09.2014, but rather concentrated their finding on medical certificate dated 26.10.2022, issued by Dr. Renuka Chhabra (Family Physician and Gynaecologist), with respect to his health condition of acute gastroenteritis with repeated vomiting, diarrhea, weakness and anxiety annexed with the application moved for exemption on behalf of the petitioner on 28.10.2022,” Justice Sharma said, adding Section 105 of the Act does not lay down any specific requirements of a document indicating a person suffering from mental illness.

The court observed further that Section 105 of the Act creates a right in favor of a person who claims to suffer from mental illness as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act.“Section 3(5) of the said Act states that determination of a person's mental illness alone shall not imply or be assumed that the person is of unsound mind unless he has been declared as such by a competent Court. Thus, determination in terms of Section 105 of the said Act cannot be prejudicial to the interest of respondent.”