MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently freed a man with gutka addiction from a rehabilitation centre in Bhiwandi, where he was “unnecessarily detained” at the behest of his wife.
Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse had heard the habeas corpus petition by the man’s cousin. His UAE-based brother had on July 16, sent an email to their cousin to find out about him as he required urgent hernia surgery, and also requested him to take appropriate steps. The cousin learnt that in view of the man’s matrimonial disputes, the wife had admitted him for psychiatric treatment to Amulya Prem Foundation. His petition said that he was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for no reason and no one was allowed to meet him.
On August 4, the HC directed an officer of the Bhiwandi police station to record the man’s statement at the centre as well as of its owner Paul Fernandes. On August 18, the man was produced before the judges in-chambers. Fernandes stated that he did not require hernia surgery. The judges said the statements reveal that he was “forcibly kept at the said rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife”.
They interacted with the man. He told them he was addicted to gutka but had not consumed it after he was kept at the centre. “He also informed us that he did not wish to stay at the rehabilitation centre and wanted to go along with the petitioner (cousin). He stated that in view of the dispute with his wife, she had kept him at the rehabilitation centre,” the judges noted. The cousin said he is “ready to take his entire responsibility” and would take him to his house.
Fernandes and a trustee, Manisha Patil, said it was on the wife’s instructions that they were not allowing anybody to meet her husband. She was paying them to keep him at the centre. “Thus, considering the aforesaid, it is clear that he was unnecessarily detained at the said rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife,” the judges noted.
They were not shown medical papers to prove the man was required to be admitted to the centre. Hence the judges permitted him to go along with his cousin. The centre’s representatives assured the judges “that henceforth, they will not detain any person in such a manner without following due process of law.”
Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Gauri Godse had heard the habeas corpus petition by the man’s cousin. His UAE-based brother had on July 16, sent an email to their cousin to find out about him as he required urgent hernia surgery, and also requested him to take appropriate steps. The cousin learnt that in view of the man’s matrimonial disputes, the wife had admitted him for psychiatric treatment to Amulya Prem Foundation. His petition said that he was admitted to the rehabilitation centre for no reason and no one was allowed to meet him.
On August 4, the HC directed an officer of the Bhiwandi police station to record the man’s statement at the centre as well as of its owner Paul Fernandes. On August 18, the man was produced before the judges in-chambers. Fernandes stated that he did not require hernia surgery. The judges said the statements reveal that he was “forcibly kept at the said rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife”.
They interacted with the man. He told them he was addicted to gutka but had not consumed it after he was kept at the centre. “He also informed us that he did not wish to stay at the rehabilitation centre and wanted to go along with the petitioner (cousin). He stated that in view of the dispute with his wife, she had kept him at the rehabilitation centre,” the judges noted. The cousin said he is “ready to take his entire responsibility” and would take him to his house.
Fernandes and a trustee, Manisha Patil, said it was on the wife’s instructions that they were not allowing anybody to meet her husband. She was paying them to keep him at the centre. “Thus, considering the aforesaid, it is clear that he was unnecessarily detained at the said rehabilitation centre at the behest of his wife,” the judges noted.
They were not shown medical papers to prove the man was required to be admitted to the centre. Hence the judges permitted him to go along with his cousin. The centre’s representatives assured the judges “that henceforth, they will not detain any person in such a manner without following due process of law.”
