Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Psychiatric evaluation in Mohan Kumar Rayana vs Komal Mohan Rayana on 16 January, 2009Matching Fragments
8. Similar are the questions as to whom the burden of proof and onus in law would lie in such case?;
whether it is discharged by the spouse seeking custody?;
whether there existed any change in the circumstances warranting change of custody from the appellant-husband to the respondent-wife within 4.1/2 months from the date of the order granting interim custody?; whether there was direction of this Court of psychiatric evaluation of both the parents and a child?; whether the findings recorded by the Family Court while granting interim custody are conclusive in nature and whether the Family Court was right in reversing its finding within 4,1/2 months from the date of granting interim custody? These questions, in our view, need not be gone into and addressed in this judgment. The Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents.
28. That takes us to consider the report of Dr.Haridas. Pursuant to the impugned order dated 2.2.2007, the custody of Anisha was directed to be handed over to the respondent-wife. This court and the Supreme Court, by various orders, granted interim access to the child in favour of the appellant-husband.
However, the order of access did not work for some or other reason. This Court, at the stage of considering the issue of interim access, vide order dated 25.7.2007, appointed, Dr Haridas, the Head of the Department of Psychiatry of the J.J.Hospital for the purpose of counselling the parties and the child and was directed to submit a report of psychiatric evaluation of the couple and the child. In pursuance of the said order, by the parties were subjected to all standard psychological tests Dr.Mistry, Clinical Psychologist, Dr.Bodke, Sr.Resident in Psychiatry and Dr. Haridas himself, who was appointed by the order of this Court. They administered different tests on the appellant, the respondent and Anisha and recorded their clinical impressions about all the three. The clinical impressions recorded by the team of doctors at J.J.Hospital regarding all the three, read thus:
29. The psychiatric evaluation by the team of Doctors headed by Dr.R.M.Haridas was done in September,2007.
Since more than a year had passed, this Court once again directed to conduct the similar tests by the very same team of doctors and accordingly Psychiatric Evaluation Report has been submitted by Dr.Haridas. They have stated that upon full review they did not find any evidence to revise the report dated 30.9.2007 in any way and their recommendations made in the earlier report are as valid now as then. In short, the recent evaluation show the similar profile on psychological tests done in 2007.
whether the orders passed by this Court dated 19.7.2007 and 25.7.2007 mandate only counselling to be administered to the appellant, the respondent and Anisha?; whether the orders mandate psychiatric evaluation?; whether Dr.Haridas alone was directed to carry out the mandate?; whether the report of Dr.Haridas could be looked into since he was not subjected to cross-examination? etc. In our opinion, we need not address these questions for a simple reason that the parties willingly underwent counselling/psychatric test conducted by the team of Doctors further directed of JJ Hospital. Not only that when this the very same team of the doctors court to conduct similar test/evaluation in view of the passage of time, the parties have willingly faced the evaluation.