petition for medical board to examine the respondent= Whether or not the petitioner had a duty to take care and protect the respondent is not the subject matter of the application. All that the petitioner had requested the Court was that the respondent be referred for examination by a psychiatrist at a Government Hospital in Hyderabad. The respondent herself agreed to be subjected to medical examination, but at the local Government Hospital in Kurnool. In the light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the Court below erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application.

CRP 299 / 2013

CRPSR 1673 / 2013

PETITIONER RESPONDENT Y.SRIKANTH REDDY   VS Y.KALYANI PET.ADV. : JANAKIRAMI REDDY RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ARTICLE 227 DISTRICT:  KURNOOL

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

C.R.P.No.299 of 2013

ORDER:                                                        

          The petitioner herein filed an application, in F.C.O.P.No.82 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court, Kurnool, seeking divorce from the respondent. 

He filed I.A.No.373 of 2012 contending that the respondent’s behaviour towards the petitioner and his parents was hysterical, and sought a direction from the Court to refer the respondent to the Superintendent of Yerragadda Mental Hospital, Hyderabad to constitute a medical board to examine the respondent, and submit a report. 

          In his affidavit in support of the I.A, the petitioner stated that the respondent was earlier referred to a psychologist – Dr. Swathi - at Hyderabad who had given a report that the respondent was aggressive in nature, and she needed treatment.

          A counter affidavit was filed to the said I.A. wherein the respondent stated that she was willing for being examined by any independent doctor, but not as suggested by the petitioner; and the Kurnool Government General Hospital itself had the required expertise for giving such an opinion. 

Despite the respondent having agreed to be subjected to examination in the Government Hospital at Kurnool, the Court below rejected the application on the ground that no prima facie case was made out; 

it was the duty of the petitioner to take care and protect the respondent by giving medical aid; and without taking such steps he was taking the aid of the Court to elicit mental illness of the respondent. 

Whether or not the petitioner had a duty to take care and protect the respondent is not the subject matter of the application. All that the petitioner had requested the Court was that the respondent be referred for examination by a psychiatrist at a Government Hospital in Hyderabad.  The respondent herself agreed to be subjected to medical examination, but at the local Government Hospital in Kurnool.  In the light of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the Court below erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application.

          The order of the Court below is set aside.   The I.A. is restored to file.  The Court below shall, in the light of the observations made hereinabove, pass an order afresh in the I.A, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from today.  The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                             __________

                                                                             28-2-2013

asp