Disposed

Rebeccamma v. the District Superintend of Police

Kerala HC6 Oct 2015WP(C)/14236/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rebbecamma filed a writ petition regarding the third respondent, a mentally ill individual treated at a mental health centre. The court observed that the respondent's condition had improved per a psychiatrist's statement and a letter from his wife. The court ordered the transfer of custody to the wife (additional fourth respondent) with a mandate for continued follow-up treatment.

What did the court decide?

Custody of the third respondent granted to the additional fourth respondent (wife) to ensure continued follow-up treatment.

Rebeccamma Vs the District Superintend of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/14TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

W.P.(C).No.14236 of 2015 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

REBECCAMMA, AGED 73 YEARS, KATTANTAYATH, PULIYOOR, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DIST.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 685 501.

¶11

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 689101.

¶12

ACHUTHAN PILLAI, KANNATH HOUSE, PULIYOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DIST. - 689 101.

¶13

ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:

¶14

ADDL.R4. SUSHEELA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O.ACHUTHAN PILLAI, KANNATH HOUSE, PULIYOOR P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶15

ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.6.2015 IN I.A.NO.7699 OF 2015.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.FAZIL. ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.14236 OF 2015-D

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION DATED ON 3.7.2015 AND ITS TYPED COPY. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.11.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS/ANNEXURES:-

¶23

ANNEXURE I THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR.RAFIK ANZAR A.S. ANNEXURE I(a) THE LEGIBLE TYPED COPY OF ANNEXURE I. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2015 SUBMITTED BY SMT.SUSEELA TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

vku/ [ true copy ]

¶25

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

¶26

W.P.(C).No.14236 of 2015-D

¶27

----------------------------------------

¶28

Dated this the 06^th day of October, 2015.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The additional statement filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader on the basis of the directions issued by this Court on 01.09.2015 is taken on record. Read para 2 of the said statement:

¶31

“As per orders of this Hon'ble Court the 3^rd Respondent was admitted in the Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, where he is undergoing treatment. The Psychiatrist has informed that, Smt.Suseela, W/o.Sri.Achuthan Pillai has approached the Mental Health Centre and expressed her willingness to take his custody and to provide further care. The true copy of the letter dated 23.09.2015 submitted by Smt.Suseela to the Superintendent of Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and marked as Annexure III. The Superintendent, Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram has informed me that Sri.Achuthan Pillai has improved with the treatment and

¶32

WP(C).No.14236 of 2015 - 2 -

¶33

that his behavior and self care were also improved and that he can be managed without patient treatment with regular follow up”.

¶34

The condition of the subject, the 3^rd respondent herein, having improved considerably as has been stated in the statement; reiterating the opinion of the Superintendent, Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and also taking note of the letter dated 23.09.2015 of the wife of the 3^rd respondent, the additional 4^th respondent herein, it is only proper that the 3^rd respondent be given to the custody of the additional 4^th respondent. The additional 4^th respondent shall ensure that follow-up treatment is continued. The petitioner would be entitled to move the Court if at all any untoward incident happens.

¶35

With the above directions, the writ petition would stand closed.

¶36

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶37

vku.

¶38

[true copy]

Rebeccamma v. the District Superintend of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rebeccamma v. the District Superintend of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nini Joseph Vs Director of Higher Secondary Education

M.Mohammed Moulavi Vs State of Kerala

Malabar Distillery Employees Association Vs State of Kerala

V.v.Mani Warrier Vs Commissioner Hrn & Ce

Prabodh.S.S Vs State of Kerala

Haleema Nawrin Vs Union of India