R. Malarvizhi vs Inspector of Police and Others

V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—This is a very pathetic petition. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by one R. Malarvizhi, who herself is a Gazetted

Officer being an engineer herself presently serving as an Assistant Engineer. The detenu is her husband. His name is Avudaiyapan. He himself is an

engineer and at the relevant time, he was serving as Deputy Superintendent Civil , in Neyveli Lignite Corporation at Neyveli. It seems that they

were married in the year 1989 and there are two children born out of this union. From 1998, the health of the detenu started deteriorating ,

perhaps because of the mental illness as well as physical illness. He also suffered stroke. He was said to be treated in Appollo Hospital for which

admittedly the petitioner bore the expenses. Respondents 3 and 5 are his brothers while the 4th respondent is the wife of the 3rd respondent and

the 6th respondent is his brother-in-law. It so happened that after the health of the detenu started falling, the detenu perhaps due to insanity, left the

house. He was found on Tirunelveli Station. He was thereafter produced before the Magistrate. who directed him to be taken to his brothers and

more particularly to the 5th respondent B. Kasi. It seems that a complaint was lodged by the petitioner on 26.02.2003 with the Inspector of

Police, Neyveli in respect of this and therefore investigation was taken at the instance of the first respondent. The said detenu was brought on

5.3.2003 and the parties were called including the petitioner. Ultimately it seems that the detenu husband was sent alongwith the petitioner on

5.3.2003. However, he was again called on 9.3.2003 and that is how the detenu was sent away alongwith his brother and presently he is with his

brother, the 5th respondent. It is therefore claimed that since the detenu is not in a fit mental state to decide as to with whom he has to stay, his

custody be restored to the petitioner who is none else but his wife.

There is another angle of this story. Obviously the detenu has to receive his terminal benefits from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation presently he is

not a position to serve any further. He also is said to have some property at Tuticorin.

This petition is opposed on behalf of the brothers more particularly by the 5th respondent who want to say that he would take care of his

brother and would also spend if necessary, for the treatment. When the detenu was brought before this court , this court found that the detenu was

not in the fit state of mind and therefore, he was directed to be examined by the expert panel. Accordingly he was admitted to the Madras Medical

College and was thoroughly examined. There is a letter on record by Prof.V. Sundaravadivelu who is the Professor of Medicine, Institute of

Internal Medicine, Government General Hospital & MMC, Chennai. In his opinion, the doctors found something wrong with the neurological and

psychological aspects of the concerned detenu. They also found that he had some cardiological complaints. He was also examined by Prof.V.S.

Iyadorai who also found that the patient has suffered from some neurological maladies. There is lastly the report by Dr. R. Sathianathen, who in his

report clearly suggests that the patient has poor insight and his judgement is impaired and he is not in a position to make correct decisions about

with whom he should live at present. In the Diagnosis the expert says,

A case of Autoimmune Hemolytic disease with left sided MCA territory Haemorage with diabetic mellitus and hypertension, with myocardial

infarction.

He has severe memory impairment and low average intellectual functions with behavioural disturbances. He requires long term treatment by multi

disciplinary team comprising of general physician, Neurologist and Psychiatrist.

When the matter came before us, the said detenu was produced and it was found that the detenu used to get excited at the very mentioning of his

wife''s name. In the open court his behaviour was far from being normal. He was shouting and called her wife, ""Pisasu (vampire)"". It was therefore

argued on behalf of the brothers that it would not be proper to send the said detenu alongwith the petitioner. His brother, the 5th respondent herein

also showed his readiness to maintain the detenu. Both the parties have filed their affidavits before us. In the affidavit the petitioner has specifically

stated that she is prepared to bear all the expenses of the medical treatment to her husband and that she is not at all interested in any amounts

which are receivable by the detenu on account of his retirement from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation and that she would not claim anything in

respect of the properties at Tuticorin. The 5th respondent has stated in his affidavit filed before us that as his own financial condition is not all that

satisfactory since he earns only Rs. 5700/- by way of salary, he says that he should be allowed to spend out of the interests which would be

receivable on the amount which the detenu would eventually receive from the Neyveli Lignite Corporation. He is also not interested in the

properties otherwise.

Considering the over all situation, we are of the clear opinion that this case would fall under the provisions of Section 19 of the Mental Health

Act. It would be first better to get the detenu thoroughly checked by the competent Neurologist, psychiatrist and cardiologists and for that

purpose, it will be better to take a recourse as suggested by Section 19 of the Mental Health Act which requires opinion of two expert doctors.

We already have the opinion of those two expert doctors regarding the mental condition of the detenu. Besides this, we have invited with the help

of the learned Public Prosecutor, Dr. Asokan who has himself studied both the reports in the court and he is of the clear opinion that the detenu

needs hospitalisation and he is mentally ill person. In that view we direct the detenue to be admitted in the Institute of Mental Health , Kilpauk,

Chennai u/s 19(1) of the Act. All the expenditure for his treatment would be met by his wife, the petitioner herein. We are told that the treatment

would not be all that costly. Be that as it may, after the detenu spends his 90 days or the period as considered to be necessary by the experts, he

shall be produced before the magistrate having jurisdiction viz., Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for the further course regarding his

reception order. If it is felt that the reception order is not necessary and the detenu is completely good, then his custody would not be a problem at

all. In case, he is still incapable of deciding as to with whom he has to stay with, he would be in the custody of his wife. Even otherwise after he

becomes normal, then it would depend upon his own volition and will as to with whom he has to stay. However, in the meantime the amounts

receivable by him or his property shall not be in any way tampered with or tinkered with by any of the parties. It will be open for the petitioner to

move the concerned authorities under Chapter-6 of the Act. With the above observations the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of.