Bombay HC Fines Andheri Man Rs 5 Lakh for Malicious Plea Against Father
The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a 54-year-old Andheri resident seeking a mental health evaluation of his 78-year-old father, a retired IAS officer. Calling the legal action "malicious" and a "pernicious attempt" to harass the senior citizen, the court directed the son to pay Rs 5 lakh to his father.
A division bench comprising Justices A S Gadkari and Kamal Khata upheld a single-judge order from February that rejected the son's petition. The son had sought the constitution of an independent medical board under Section 105 of the Mental Health Act, 2017, claiming his father was mentally ill.
The bench strongly reprimanded the son for his actions, observing that such conduct against an aged father suffering from various illnesses cannot and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
The dispute stems from ongoing legal battles between the family members, who both reside in Andheri. In 2015, the son filed a suit for the partition of coparcenary ancestral property, which remains pending. He subsequently filed an interim application seeking the medical examination, relying on a July 2024 medical certificate showing his father had diabetes with recurrent hypoglycemic episodes.
The High Court noted that the medical certificate only demonstrated transient symptoms, such as confusion, delusions, and forgetfulness, linked to insulin-induced hypoglycemia. The judges affirmed the finding that episodic and reversible symptoms caused by an underlying metabolic condition cannot be construed as mental illness.
The bench also pointed out that the son had previously omitted these mental health claims before another division bench handling an eviction petition under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Instead, he moved the interim application just days before an order was due in the eviction case.
The court agreed that the application was an "instrument of litigation strategy" intended to pressure the elderly father. The judges emphasized that the Mental Health Act is designed to protect vulnerable individuals and cannot be wielded as an adversarial weapon.
