Delhi District Court
Smt. Preet Kaur vs State on 15 December, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : THC: DELHI
MHA No. 01/2017
Unique I.D. No: : DLWT01-000815-2017
Smt. Preet Kaur
D/o. Late Smt Inderjeet Kaur
R/o. B-2/245, Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063
..... Petitioner
Versus
1. State
(NCT of Delhi)
2. Sh. Lakhvir Singh Bhatia
S/o Late Sh. Gurbux Singh
R/o 27/20, East Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
Also At:-
R/o 45/20, East Patel Nagar
New Delhi-110008
..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 31.01.2017
Date of reserving the Judgment : 29.11.2022
Date of pronouncement : 15.12.2022
ORDER
1. The present petition under Section 50, 53, 54, 55 & 56 53 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 read with provisions of Guardian and Wards Act for appointing the petitioner as Guardian of the person as well as Manager for the properties owned and possessed by her sister Ms. Sumit Kaur, daughter of Lt. Smt. Inderjeet Kaur r/o B-2/245, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi who is mentally ill.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 1/232. It is stated that petitioner is an Indian Citizen residing at the address mentioned in the title of the petition. The mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Inderjeet Kaur was a school teacher in Delhi Government School at Paschim Vihar, New Delhi who retired from the services around year 2003 after voluntary retirement. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner was marred to one Sh. Amarjit Singh Sabharwal in the year 1969. However, this marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 16.01.1976 granted by court of Sh. K. B. Andley, Ld. ADJ, Delhi as he then was. The mother of the petitioner thereafter married to respondent no.2 sometime in the year 1978. Out of the wedlock of Smt. Inderjeet Kaur and respondent no.2 Lakhbir singh, two daughters were born namely Preet Kaur (petitioner) and Sumit Kaur (who is mentally ill). Thereafter, due to some known reasons the respondent no.2 left her wife and two minor daughters around year 1996-97 and did not return thereafter not bothered about their well being.
3. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner took care of the two minor children and brought them up. The respondent no.2 herein who is father of the petitioner as well as the mentally ill Ms. Sumit Kaur never cared about his daughters in these about 30 years and due to this attitude and behavior of the respondent no.2, the deceased Inderjeet Kaur submitted a letter dated 12.02.2002 with school administration where she was working By this letter, she informed the school administration that her husband Lakhbir has left her and minor children about 20 years ago and hence she does not want to nominate her husband for anything and she wants to nominate her two daughters Preet kaur and Sumit Kaur for everything which belongs to her.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 2/234. It is stated that deceased Inderjeet Kaur had applied for a plot of land with DDA. She was allotted a plot bearing no. B-2/245, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi which is about 200 square yards /166 square meters. The deceased Smt. Inderjeet Kaur also left behind other properties such bank account with Dena Bank, Paschim Vihar bearing account no. 190, Bank Account with Union Bank of India, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi bearing account no. 42099, A bank locker with Dena Bank Paschim Vihar, new Delhi bearing no. 1158A-0000557. The deceased had also opened deposit accounts with post office Paschim Vihar, New Delhi bearing no. 35002039 Senior Citizen Account and one MIS Account no. 419397 in joint names of herself and Sumit Kaur. The amounts lying with two post office accounts is around 16 Lacs. The petitioner is elder daughter and is married to Anil Kumar Sah who is physiotherapist and working with charitable physiotherapy centre at Om Mandir Dhaka, Delhi-110009. The petitioner has a minor son.
5. It is stated that younger sister of petitioner namely Sumit Kaur has been suffering from mental illness called Schizophrenia and is under going treatment for last years and during these years the petitioner and her mother were taking care of Sumit Kaur. The deceased due to continuous illness of Ms.Sumit Kaur took voluntary retirement from teaching around year 2003 when the petitioner started working and earning. The petitioner then started taking care of all the financial needs of the family.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 3/236. It is stated that petitioner got married Anil Kumar Sah in the year 2007 and after her marriage she started residing with her husband at Rohini in the flat owned by her husband, however, petitioner and her husband continue to financially support the mother of the petitioner and were also helping her in taking care of Sumit Kaur. However, the respondent no.2 never came back to take his responsibility to support his family. It is stated that mother of the petitioner unfortunately died on 02.10.2015 due to illness and thereafter the petitioner along with her husband and minor child shifted to house of her mother to take care of her mentally ill sister Sumit Kaur and since then the Sumit Kaur is under their care and custody.
7. It is stated that petitioner herein had earlier filed a joint petition in name of herself and her mentally ill sister Sumit Kaur in the court of District Judge, West District, Delhi for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of Estate left behind by her deceased mother Smt. Inderjeet Kaur. The said probate petition bearing no.81/2015 filed in December 2015 is now pending trial in court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ-02, West and now fixed for 04.01.2017.
8. It is stated that in the above mentioned probate case the petitioner filed an application for being appointed as guardian of the petitioner no.2 Sumit Kaur, who is mentally ill under Section 53 and 54 of Mental Ill Health. It is further stated that Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ by order dated 20.03.2016 passed under Section 50 of Mental Health Act directed that Sumit Kaur be examined by Medical Board of IHBAS and to report about her mental illness and whether Sumit Kaur is capable to look MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 4/23 after herself and her properties or not. Sumit Kaur got admitted to IHBAS as per opinion of the Medical Board and after admission she was thoroughly examined. The Medical Board of IHBAS Hospial submitted a detailed report defining the illness of Sumit Kaur and also opined that Sumit Kaur is unable to look after herself and her properties.
9. It is stated that the court thereafter by order dated 07.11.2016 appointed petitioner Preet Kaur as guardian / next friend of Sumit Kaur under provisions of CPC for the purpose of probate case only as the court was of the opinion that a separate petition for appointment of Guardian has to be field before the District Judge concerned. Hence, this petition is now being filed. It is stated that Sumit Kaur is unable to look after herself and her properties. She was being taken care off and looked after by her mother now deceased Smt. Inderjeet Kaur who unfortunately died on 02.10.2015 and now the petitioner no.1 and her husband are looking after her and taking care of all her needs.
10. It is stated that respondent no.2 happens to be husband of the deceased Smt. Inderjeet Kaur and also father of both the petitioner herein Ms. Preet Kaur as well as father of Sumit Kaur who is mentally ill but he separated from their mother about more than 30 years ago and thereafter never looked after and cared about Smt. Inderjeet Kaur as well as her two daughters. It is stated that the petitioner as well as her younger sister Sumit Kaur were looked after and brought by their deceased mother only. It is stated that petitioner has no interest adverse to the interest of her mentally ill sister Sumit Kaur and she is only person fit to be appointed as guardian of person as well as properties of Ms. Sumit Kaur.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 5/2311. It is further stated that it has come on records of the probate case no. 81/2015 as mentioned above that when Sumit Kaur was admitted to IHBAS hospital for examination she was being looked after by her sister Preet Kaur and husband of her sister who contiuously remained present in the hospital for more than one month when Sumit Kaur was admitted there for medical examination. It is stated that deceased Smt. Inderjeet Kaur during her life time gave a letter to the school authorities where she was working stating therein that she does not want to nominate her husband Lakhbir Singh for any of her properties as he separated from her about 20 years ago and wanted to nominate only her two daughters Preet Kaur and Sumit Kaur.
12. It is stated that it is a fit case where a guardian is required to be appointed for looking after the person of Sumit Kaur as well as for appointment of Manager in respect of the properties of Ms. Sumit Kaur who is mentally ill and incapable to look after herself as well as her properties which she has inherited upon death of her mother Smt. Inderjeet Kaur who dies intestate without leaving behind any will. Petitioner submits that the present petition may be allowed and the petitioner be appointed the Guardian of person of Ms. Sumit Kaur daughter of late Smt. Inderjeet kaur resident of B-2/245, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and also Manager to manage the properties owned and inherited by Ms. Sumit Kaur upon death of her her mother Smt. Inderjeet Kaur who dies intestate without leaving behind any will.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 6/2313. Respondent no.2 filed WS to the petition. It is stated that the present petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the present form, deserves dismissal. It is stated that petitioner has filed the present petition just to harass the respondent and to grab the property of the answering respondent. It is stated that petitioner has no right to file the petition. It is stated that the petitioner has not come to this court with clean hands and has no right as claimed by her in the petition. It is stated that the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed under Order 7 rule 11 CPC as no cause of action ever arose for filing of the petition.
14. It is stated that petitioner has not affixed the appropriate court fees, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that petitioner has no supplied the copy of relevant papers / documents to the respondent, hence the respondent reserves the right to file a detailed reply on receipt of the same. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the present case just to harass the respondents and to put pressure upon him to support her in the case pending in the court of Sh.Sanjay Kumar, Ld. ADJ, West and to blackmail the answering respondent. It is stated that the present petition of the petitioner is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the parties, hence liable to be dismissed.
15. On merits, it is stated that petitioner has filed the present petition with malafide intention to grab the share / property of Ms. Sumit Kaur d/o Late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur and of the respondent no.2. It is stated that the sole intention of the petitioner is only to grab the property and not to look after Ms. Sumit Kaur d/o Inderjeet Kaur. It is stated that Ms. Sumit MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 7/23 Kaur d/o Late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur is capable to maintain / look after herself. It is stated that the answering respondent being the father and guardian of Ms. Sumit Kaur, can say that Ms. Sumit Kaur is secondary pass and is not a lunatic or incapable of taking care of herself or her properties. It is stated that the respondent is aware of the fact that Ms. Sumit Kaur suffers from schizophrenia. It is stated that the intention of the petitioner is clear to grab the petitioner of Ms. Sumit Kaur from the contents of the petition, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed.
16. Respondent admitted that he was married to Inderjeet Kaur and two daughters were born out of the said marriage. Respondent further admitted that the said Inderjeet Kaur was divorcee at the time of her marriage with the respondent. Respondent has denied that respondent no.2 left his wife and two minor daughters and did not bother about there well being. It is stated that though the respondent was residing separately from his wife, but he was looking after her and their children and also supported them in all manners. In this regard, it is stated that respondent ever beared all expenses of education of their children as well as domestic. It is stated that he was frequently visiting the residence of Smt. Inderjeet and gave full financial and all other support to her, as and when she was in need. She denied that that the respondent no.2 never cared about his daughters. It is stated that with the consent of the respondent, the mother of the petitioner applied for the plot and full support was given to the mother of the petitioner by the respondent.
17. It is stated that respondent is having some knowledge that Sumit Kaur is suffering from schizophrenia and gets the attacks at times but MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 8/23 this cannot be termed as mental illness as alleged by the petitioner. Respondent has denied that due to illness of Sumit Kaur took voluntary retirement and petitioner started working and taking care of all the financial needs of the family. Respondent has denied that the petitioner and her husband continue to financial support the mother of the petitioner and also helping her in taking care of Sumit Kaur. It is stated that respondent was having visiting terms with his wife and supported her in all manner. It is stated that in fact the petitioner was not having visiting terms with her mother and sister due to her greedy intention as number of times she quarreled with her mother and demanded money and share in the property but Smt. Inderjeet Kaur refused to the same.
18. It is stated that Sumit Kaur is capable to look after herself and her properties and at present petitioner and her husband are looking after and taking care of Sumit Kaur. Respondent has denied the contentions of the petitioner in the subsequent paras. Respondent submits that the petition of the petitioner may be dismissed with heavy cost upon the petitioner.
19. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the written statement of the respondent in which she has reiterated the facts of the petition. It is stated respondent no.2 never had any love and affection for her minor daughter and left them alone in the custody of their mother at the time when these minor girls needed him the most. It is stated that respondent never contributed or shared the burden of household and was enjoying upon the income of mother of petitioner. It is stated that respondent himself stated before the court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ-2, West where the probate petition filed by the petitioner is pending adjudication that MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 9/23 respondent no.2 is very old age and unable to take care of mentally ill Sumit Kaur and hence does not want to become guardian but he objected to petitioner being appointed guardian of Ms. Sumit Kaur. It is stated that court of Ld. ADJ-2, West after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case appointed the petitioner herein as guardian for the mentally ill Sumit Kaur and permitted the petitioner to represent Sumit Kaur in Probate proceedings and respondent never challenged the said orders.
20. In reply to the preliminary objections, petitioner has denied the contentions of the respondent. It is stated that during the pendency of probate petition, Ms. Sumit Kaur fell ill and under direction from the court, she was admitted to IHBAS for treatment and examination regarding state of her mental illness and during the time Ms. Sumit Kaur was admitted to hospital at IHBAS, the respondent no.2 was once permitted to see, however taking advantage of the said permission,the respondent no.2 started regularly visiting the house of the petitioner or he would meet her at Gurudwara, Paschim Vihar despite objection from the petitioner. This fact was brought to notice of the court, whereupon the permission to meet granted to respondent was revoked. It is stated that respondent has been extending threats to petitioner, her husband and minor son to run away and vacate the house of mother of petitioner and for this he also extended threats with connivance of IO of the area and also some office bearer of Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee. The petitioner also lodged a complaint with Delhi Commission for Woman and it was thereafter the police came into action and stopped the respondent no.2 to meet Sumit Kaur or extend threats to petitioner and her family. It is stated that only motive of the MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 10/23 respondent no.2 is to some how grab the property left behind by deceased mother of petitioner.
21. It is stated that petitioner being real sister of mentally ill person Sumit Kaur is the best suitable to be appointed guardian of person and property of her sister Sumit Kaur as provided by provisions of Mental Health Act. It is stated that she is also a qualified professional and technically equipped with degrees to deal with such conditions.
22. In order to prover her, petitioner appeared in witness box as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. She relied upon the documents i.e. copy of her Aadhar Card and that of her sister / patient Ms. Sumeet Kaur as Ex. PW-1/1 and PW-1/2 (OSR); copy of letter dated 12.08.2002 is Mark 'A', copy of degree of B.Sc as Ex. PW-1/4; copy of degree of B.Ed as Ex. PW-1/5; certificate qua special training taken for handling mentally ill person as Ex. PW-1/6; copy of bank passbook with Dena Bank as Ex. PW-1/7; Copy of bank passbook with Union Bank of India as Ex. PW-1/8; copy of medical record qua treatment of patient Sumeet Kaur as Ex. PW-1/9 running into 66 pages; certified copy of order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ (West); original medical opinion of the Medical Board, IHBAS as Ex. PW-1/11.
23. During cross-examination, she deposed that she has filed the present case to get the guardianship of her sister namely Ms. Sumeet Kaur as after the death of her mother there is no one else to lookafter her. She deposed that she is a Teacher in a Govt. school. She has six hours duty MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 11/23 hours but she has to work beyond her duty hours sometimes. She deposed that she has to leave her home for her duties at 7.00 a.m. in the morning and usually come back at about 1.30/2.00 p.m. and if she have to work beyond her duty hours, then she bring her work to home. If she works at home, she spent about two hours for her official work. She admitted that her mother is also a Teacher and she used to leave home for going to school at 12.30 p.m. and used to come back at about 6.00 p.m. At the time of her marriage, her mother was not working as she retired from her job in the year 2002. Her mother expired in the year 2015. She used to visit her mother daily after her marriage till she was alive since the year 2002 in the evening. She used to go to her mother to meet her.
24. During cross examination, she admitted that Sh. Lakhvir Singh, respondent no.2 was legally married to Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, her mother. She denied the suggestion that respondent no.2 and her mother resided together for a long time. They never lived together. She voluntarily stated that he used to come and go often that also when they used to call him as seen by her after my birth. She denied the suggestion that respondent no.2 was residing with her mother. She denied the suggestion that he resided with her mother after 1995. She denied the suggestion that her father is contributing financially to her mother. In the year 1995, she was 17 years of age. A specific question was put to the witness. "Can you tell me why your parents resided separately after 1995 as alleged by you?". Witness replied that her father i.e. respondent no.2 was residing with his mother and sister and he was also controlled by them and he gave no respect to her mother and there was no mutual understanding for spouse and no sense of responsibility towards his daughters. Question was put to the MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 12/23 witness that "In your affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in para 4, you have stated that due to some unknown reasons, the respondent no.2 left his wife and two minor daughters around the year 1996/97. What you have to say int his regard as the witness is confronted with the same? Witness replied that she did not remember the exact year but it was in the year 1995 from when her parents started residing separately.
25. During cross-examination, she further deposed that she do not remember when Ex. PW-1/A was prepared. She did not remember who prepared Ex. PW-1/A. She did not remember the date, month or year when Ex. PW-1/A was signed by her but it was at the time when Mr. Chawla was her counsel. She did not remember on which date, month or year Ex. PW- 1/A was prepared by Mr. Chawla. She admitted that she filed a Probate before the competent Court of jurisdiction. She admitted that she had withdrawn the said Probate petition. She deposed that at the time of her marriage, her sister was not having good condition and she was ill. Her treatment was going in the AIIMS hospital and sometimes, she was treated in Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and some other hospitals. The said treatment is of after her marriage i.e. in the year 2004. She deposed that she has not filed any document showing that the treatment of Sumeet Kaur was going on in the year 2004 or thereafter in AIIMS or some nearby hospital as the same were misplaced.
26. She admitted that after her marriage, her mother used to take care of her sister Sumeet Kaur. She voluntarily deposed that her husband also used to help in taking care of her sister Sumeet Kaur. She denied the suggestion that her sister Sumeet Kaur was not suffering from any mental MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 13/23 ailment or that she was mentally healthy. She denied the suggestion that Summet Kaur used to do all her work including bank work, domestic work, etc. herself. She deposed that as far as she remember, her sister Sumeet Kaur studied till her college. May be it was 2003. She deposed that she has filed documents pertaining to her B.Sc degree qua occupational therapy and B.Ed degree qua special education for mentally retarded. She voluntarily stated that she has also filed her registration certificate qua special education of mental retardation. At the time when she is on duty, her son and her sister Sumeet Kaur reside at the house. She deposed that her son is 13 years old at present. The treatment of her sister was going on at IHBAS since 2013. She did not remember whether she has filed documents regarding medical treatment of her sister Sumeet Kaur at IBHAS since the year 2013.
27. She further deposed that her husband handed over all medical documents to her present counsel. Ex. PW-1/9 (Colly) are the documents which are filed by her. She deposed that Ms. Sumeet Kaur is suffering from Schizophrenia. She has lost her touch with the reality being a patient of Schizophrenia and often her higher level cognitive functions are affected like judgment, decision making, taking precautions measures. She was diagnosed in AIIMS for the illness of Schizophrenia and the same is confirmed by IHBAS. She deposed that she has gone through the reports which were given by the doctors of AIIMS and IHBAS. She admitted that the doctors of IHBAS stated that she is suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia and that she requires continuous treatment for the said illness for her whole life. The treatment is still continuing and regular monthly follow up is going on. However, they were not able to go during the entire MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 14/23 COIVD period as OPDs are not functioning. She denied the suggestion that they are not going for the treatment of the said Sumeet Kaur. She admitted that she has not filed the recent treatment medical records of Sumeet Kaur but they can provide the same if demanded.
28. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she has filed the present petition in order to grab the property / assets belonging to Sumeet Kaur. She voluntarily deposed that her father never accepted the condition of Sumeet Kaur nor he was aware of her diagnosis. He instigated her sister to get off the medicines to grab her properties so that Sumeet Kaur attempts suicide and he can grab her properties. She deposed that in the year of 2016, her father visited the hospital. She voluntarily deposed that her father also visited her house premises without her permission and instigated Sumeet Kaur to file false case against her husband and to get off medicines and her sister Sumeet Kaur stopped taking medicines, for which reasons, her sister had to be got admitted in the hospital again. She admitted that she has narrated all these facts in the present case.
29. She denied the suggestion that the above stated voluntary averments were not mentioned in the petition or in my affidavit filed by way of evidence. She admitted that a quarrel took place in the year 2016 and police came to her house. She admitted that police recorded the statement of Sumeet Kaur. She denied the suggestion that she and her mother tortured Sumeet Kaur due to which she number of times got angry and lose temper. She voluntarily deposed that her mother used to take Sumeet Kaur to hospital whenever she was ill. She deposed that her mother used to take Sumeet Kaur to hospital till she was alive and healthy i.e. till MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 15/23 2014. She deposed that she and her husband never made any attempt to withdraw the amount lying in the accounts of Sumeet Kaur. She denied the suggestion that they did not make any attempts to withdraw the said amount after the death of her mother. She denied the suggestion that the efforts were made by her and her husband. She denied the suggestion that any amount was withdrawn by anyone from the account of Sumeet Kaur. She denied the suggestion that her father supported them financially or he ever went to the hospital or to the medical professional for check up of Sumeet Kaur.
30. She deposed that the patient suffering from Paranoid Schizophrenia like her sister can manage herself/himself for 3-4 hours in a day if the patient is taking medicines regularly. Summet Kaur is taking medicines regularly for her illness twice a day i.e. in the morning at about 3.00 p.m. and in the evening at about 11.00 p.m. She denied the suggestion that she is not giving any medicines to Sumeet Kaur for long time. She denied the suggestion that Sumeet Kaur is looking after her minor child. She admitted that Summet Kaur is having the knowledge of the properties / assets mentioned by her in her petition as well as in her affidavit Ex. PW- 1/A. She deposed that in the year 2014 and 2015, she used to visit to her other's home when she was not well. A question was put to her that "during your visit to your mother's home in the year 2014 and 2015, how many hours you used to stay? She replied that she used to stay for 12 hours sometimes to 24 hours. She denied the suggestion that in the year 2014 to 2015, she did not spent 12 to 24 hours at the house of her mother. She denied the suggestion that since the day of her marriage, she regularly did not visit the house of her mother.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 16/2331. She deposed that after her marriage, her mother used to visit to the medical professional for the treatment of Sumeet Kaur. She voluntarily deposed that if there was any requirement, her husband used to help her mother. She denied the suggestion that her husband did not help her mother. She had withdrawn the Probate petition due to financial priorities. She did not know the stage when the abovesaid probate petition was withdrawn. She denied the suggestion that she has filed the present petition to grab the assets of Sumeet Kaur or that she is not able to lookafter Sumeet Kaur. She denied the suggestion that she has filed the present case just to harass the respondent no.2 in his old age. She denied the suggestion that Sumeet Kaur can look after herself.
32. Respondent also appeared in the witness box as R2W-1 and tendered her evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. R2W-1/A. He has relied upon the document i.e. the statement of Smt. Sumit Kaur, copy of the same is Mark 'A'. During cross-examination, he deposed that he is an under graduate. He used to work as an Accountant in a private company at Jhandewalan for about 22 years. However, prior to that he worked somewhere else for about five years. He left the job in the year 1984 and at that time, his salary was Rs. 1500/- or 1600/- per month. He is not receiving any pension. However, he received other benefits like Gratuity, Provident Fund, etc. Presently, he is living with her sister and she is bearing her daily expenses. A specific question was put to the witness that "Since when you started living separately from your wife and children?". Witness replied that he is living separately from his wife and children since 1999. She voluntarily stated that she used to visit them.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 17/2333. During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he left his wife and children w.e.f. 1984/1985. He denied the suggestion that he never visited his wife and children after 1984/1985. He deposed that his wife expired in October, 2015. He got to know about the death of his wife from the documents that he had received from the Court in which the death certificate of his wife was annexed. He deposed that his wife was working as a Teacher in a Govt. school. He has two children, namely Sumit Kaur and Preet Kaur. He is residing with his sister at the address mentioned in his affidavit Ex, R2W-1/A. The property in which he is living presently belongs to her sister Smt.Santosh Bhatia. He denied the suggestion that he was owner of the property bearing No. 45/20, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi- 110008 and sold it to his sister. He loved her daughters. He had not made any Will. A specific question was put to the witness that "Whether you will name / bequeath any property in favour of your daughters in case you make any Will? Court disallowed the said question being irrelevant.
34. He deposed that he used to go for the treatment of daughter Sumit Kaur at AIIMS. He did not remember the name of the treating doctor. He has not filed any documentary proof in this regard. He has not filed any case for getting the custody of his daughter Sumit Kaur. He has not made any complaint against her daughter Preet Kaur in respect of the allegations made in her affidavit Ex. R2W-1/A in para no.5 thereof. He deposed that he himself go to the doctor at the time of his illness. He denied the suggestion that he never taken care of her children. He denied the suggestion that he is contesting the present matter only with the motive to grab property of her wife. He denied the suggestion that he never took any advise from doctor regarding Sumit Kaur.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 18/2335. I have heard the Ms. Kiran, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Sh. K. K. Arora, Ld. Counsel for respondent and perused the record carefully.
36. Petitioner Smt. Preet Kaur is the real sister of mentally ill patient Ms. Sumit Kaur d/o late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur and respondent no.2 Lakhvir Singh who is her biological father. Respondent no.2 is contesting the present petition. Petitioner Preet Kaur is seeking appointment as guardian of mentally ill patient Ms. Sumit Kaur and for manging her movable and immovable properties. The court direct the IHBAS to examine the mentally ill patient Sumit Kaur and submit the detailed report. IHBAS constituted a Medical Board and examined the patient Ms Sumit Kaur and also filed the detailed report Ex.PW1/11. The Medical Board opined that
1. Patient is diagnosed with paranoid Schizophrenia
2. Despite adequate trial of medical, she has not shown much improvement and continued to be symptomatic. Her condition is unlikely to improve further.
3. She is found unfit to stand trial and unable to take care of self and property.
37. It is pertinent to mention here that the other reports regarding examination and treatment of Smt. Sumit Kaur is Ex.PW1/9 (colly) of AIIMS hospital and IHBAS hospital.
38. Respondent no.2 challenged that Sumit Kaur is not mentally ill and capable of looking after herself and her properties. However, no medical evidence produced by the respondent. Respondent no.2 Lakhbir Singh also MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 19/23 not examined any witness to corroborate this fact that patient Ms. Sumit Kaur is not having any mental disease. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 relied upon letter dated 21.09.2016 Mark A purported to be written by patient Ms. Sumit Kumar to the police. However photocopy of letter dated 21.09.2016 is not proved as per law. Therefore, it cannot be a documentary evidence to support the plea as observed herein above. The respondent no.2 failed to examine any witness or produce any documentary evidence to prove this fact. On the other hand, petitioner Preet Kaur established on record that patient Sumit Kaur is mentally ill vide report Ex.PW11/A and she is diagnosed with paranoid Schizophrenia and despite adequate trial of medical, she has not shown much improvement and continued to be symptomatic. Her condition is unlikely to improve further. She is found unfit to stand trial and unable to take care of self and property.
39. The petitioner examined herself as PW-1 reiterated the facts mentioned in above in the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and also proved the documents i.e. copy of her Aadhar Card and that of her sister / patient Ms. Sumeet Kaur as Ex. PW-1/1 and PW-1/2 (OSR); copy of letter dated 12.08.2002 is Mark 'A', copy of degree of B.Sc as Ex. PW-1/4; copy of degree of B.Ed as Ex. PW-1/5; certificate qua special training taken for handling mentally ill person as Ex. PW-1/6; copy of bank passbook with Dena Bank as Ex. PW-1/7; Copy of bank passbook with Union Bank of India as Ex. PW-1/8; copy of medical record qua treatment of patient Sumeet Kaur as Ex. PW-1/9 running into 66 pages; certified copy of order dated 07.11.2016 passed by the Court of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ (West); original medical opinion of the Medical Board, IHBAS as Ex. PW-1/11.
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 20/2340. During cross-examination as discussed herein in above, it is proved on record that deceased mother of petitioner Smt. Inderjeet Kaur died on 02.10.2015 and patient Sumit Kaur used to reside with petitioner Smt. Preet Kaur. Respondent no.2 was not residing with his wife late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur and patient Smt. Sumit Kaur. However, no documentary evidence produced on record during the life time that she was divorced but she was living separately. It has come on record during cross-examination of petitioner that respondent no.2 has left the company of deceased Smt. Inderjeet in the year 1999. It is further proved on record that treatment of patient Sumit Kaur was started at the time of marriage of petitioner and she was treated at AIIMS and Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and also after her marriage in the year 2005. It has established on record that after the marriage of petitioner, her mother used to take care of patient Sumit Kaur, however, respondent no.2 played no role to take care of patient Sumit Kaur. Petitioner specifically denied the suggestion that she filed the present petition in order to grab the property of patient Sumit Kaur and respondent no.2 visited only in the year 2016. She also specifically deposed that she and her husband never attempted to withdraw the money of patient Sumit Kaur.
41. Respondent no.2 also appeared in the witness box. He also reiterated the facts mentioned in the reply in the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.R2W1 as discussed herein above and in the detailed cross-examination, he admitted that he left the job of accountant in the private company in the year 1984 and not receiving any pension. He deposed that he is residing with his elder sister who is bearing his daily expenses. He admitted that he is living separate from his wife and children since 1999. He denied the suggestion that he has left his wife and children in the year 1984-85 and MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 21/23 never cared about both the daughters. He admitted that deceased wife Smt. Inderjeet Kaur was working as teacher in the government school. He admitted that he has not filed any documentary proof that he has been taking patient Sumit Kaur for treatment at AIIMS hospital at any point of time.
42. The material on record specially the evidence led by both the parties clearly established that patient Sumit Kaur is suffering from paranoid Schizophrenia. Despite adequate trial of medical, she has not shown much improvement and continued to be symptomatic. Her condition is unlikely to improve further. She is found unfit to stand trial and unable to take care of self and property and she require regular medical treatment. It is further established by the petitioner that she is real sister of patient Sumit Kaur and since the filing of the present petition and after the death of her mother Late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, she has been residing with patient Sumit Kaur and taking care of her along with her husband. Although both petitioner and her husband are working, however, they are taking care of the patient Sumit Kaur. On the other hand, Respondent no.2 who is biological father of patient separated from his wife Late Smt. Inderjeet Kaur from the year 1995-96. Respondent no.2 has not been working since 1984, 91 years of age and financially dependent upon his sister and has no source of income.
43. It is established on record that respondent no.2 had been living separately from his deceased wife Smt. Inderjeet Kaur who was employed as teacher and never taken care of his wife Smt Inderjeet Kaur as well as both the children Preet Kaur and Sumit Kaur. The deceased mother of patient Sumit Kaur brought up both the children and also got marriage of petitioner but respondent no.2 at no point of time contributed emotionally MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 22/23 or financially or any in any manner to his family. Petitioner is having all the financial sources and she being the elder sister is providing all kind of emotionally and financial support and also regularly taking the mentally ill patient Sumit Kaur for treatment.
44. In my considered opinion, the apprehension of respondent no.2 that petitioner would grab the movable and immovable property of patient Sumit Kaur is without any base or any substantive material. In my considered opinion, petitioner Preet Kaur is a suitable person to be appointed as guardian of mentally ill patient Ms. Sumit Kaur and as per medical board report, mentally ill patient Sumit Kaur is not capable of taking care of herself and managing her movable and immovable property.
45. Therefore, for management of movable and immovable properties of mentally ill person, I hereby appoint Smt. Preet Kaur as guardian of the patient Ms. Sumit Kaur and Manager for the movable and immovable properties of Ms. Sumit Kaur. Petitioner is directed to file an inventory regarding income from movable and immovable properties of the mentally ill person and expenditure of maintaining the mentally ill person before this Court. Petitioner Preet Kaur is further directed to maintain the record of utilization of the earning for the welfare of the mentally ill person namely Smt. Sumit Kaur. Necessary certificate be issued to the petitioner on her furnishing the requisite bond/undertaking. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (SANJAY KUMAR)
on 15th December 2022 District & Sessions Judge (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
MHA No. 01/2017 Preet Kaur vs State & Anr. Page 23/23