The Bombay High Court has imposed exemplary costs of ₹5 lakh on a man for misusing the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, in an ongoing property dispute with his 78-year-old father. The Court held that the litigation was a deliberate attempt to harass the elderly parent and constituted an abuse of the judicial process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by the son, who had sought a direction to refer his father to the Mental Health Review Board under Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The appellant claimed that certain medical records raised concerns regarding his father's mental condition and sought an independent assessment.
The dispute arose in the backdrop of a long-pending partition suit concerning ancestral property. Earlier, a Single Judge of the High Court had rejected the son's application, observing that Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act could not be used as a litigation strategy against an adversarial party.
Affirming the Single Judge's findings, the Division Bench held that the appeal was devoid of merit and appeared to be motivated by the ongoing property dispute. The Court observed that the proceedings were “malicious” and designed to pressure the father rather than genuinely protect his mental health interests.
The Bench emphasized that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, is a welfare legislation intended to safeguard the rights and dignity of persons with mental illness. It cautioned against transforming the statute into a weapon in private family disputes.
Taking serious note of the son's conduct, particularly considering the advanced age and health condition of the father, the Court imposed costs of ₹5 lakh. The judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to preventing misuse of protective legislation and discouraging frivolous litigation that burdens courts and harasses vulnerable individuals.
The ruling serves as a significant reminder that mental health laws must be invoked only for legitimate welfare concerns and not as tools for securing leverage in civil or property disputes.