The Fact of the Case
In the Matter at hand Ankur Abbot v. Ekta Abbot Ankur The Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,15,000 per month to the respondent and their minor daughter from the date of filing the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act until its final disposition on 31-3-2022 in an application under Section 23 of the DV Act. Before the Sessions Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, the petitioner contested the aforementioned order. He had been diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, depression, and anxiety, according to the petitioner’s application for exemption from appearing before the court, and he had been regularly under the care of the relevant doctors. Additionally, the Court’s attention was brought up during arguments in relation to Sections 105 and 116 of the 2017 Act. The petitioner contested the Metropolitan Magistrate’s issuance of arrest warrants against him before the Additional Sessions Judge, and the appeal was therefore denied. The petitioner had chosen the current revision petition because he was upset with the decisions made by the Metropolitan Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge.
Observation of the Court
The Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the report of the Cosmos Institute of Mental Health and Behavioural Sciences, but instead focused their findings on the medical certificate issued by the Cosmos Institute of Mental Health and Behavioural Sciences, according to Justice Amit Sharma of a Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, noting that the According to reports from the Fortis Memorial Research Institute in Gurugram, the petitioner had bipolar affective disorder… The Court concluded that a decision made in accordance with Section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 could not be detrimental to the respondent’s interests. The Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge’s orders were so revoked when the Court granted the petition.
CASE NAME – Ankur Abbot v. Ekta Abbot, Crl. Rev. P. 30 of 2023