The Bombay High Court recently imposed a hefty cost of Rs 5 lakh on a man for dragging his septuagenarian father to court despite the fact of him (father) suffering from various ailments. The High Court held this to be an abuse of the process and severely reprimanded the son's conduct. 

A division bench of Justice Ajay Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata noted that in February 2026 a single-judge had dismissed the son - Jitendra Megh's plea seeking to refer his 78-year-old father Gorakh Megh to the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) under section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 to ascertain his mental health. 

The single-judge Justice Farhan Dubash had while dismissing Jitendra's plea held that section 105 of the Mental Healthcare Act could not be used as a litigation weapon. Challenging this very order, Jitendra filed an intra-court appeal before the division bench led by Justice Gadkari.

However, the bench noted that the appeal was nothing but 'malicious' proceedings invoked against the old father.  

"In our view, it is nothing short of an afterthought and a malicious proceeding invoked to drag Gorakh, who is around 78 years old into several proceedings so that he would give up and succumb to Jitendra's demands. Such a conduct by a son against his aged father (suffering from various illnesses) cannot be and should not be tolerated under any circumstances by this Court. He deserves to be severely reprimanded for his conduct. He has clearly abused the process of this Court," the bench said in the August 25 order. 

In the instant case before him, the judges noted that Jitendra had challenged the mental health of his father and had even adduced evidence in the form of a medical certificate raising concerns over the father's mental health. However, the single-judge refused to refer the father to the MHRB after noting that the son had himself filed a suit before High Court with respect to partition of an ancestral property and therefore, had claimed that his father's mental health was improper at this stage and thus, petitioned the High Court seeking to ascertain his mental health under section 105.

The judges further noted that the Medical Certificate relied upon by Jitendra indicated that his father was a diabetic patient who experienced hypoglycaemic episodes following insulin administration, manifesting in transient symptoms such as delusions, confusion, forgetfulness, and perspiration, but these symptoms, the bench noted are usually temporary in nature and resolve upon restoration of normal blood glucose levels.

The judges further took into consideration the fact that Jitendra himself admitted that he was not an expert and neither did her relied on any other medical opinion.

"This only reinforces our view that the present Appeal is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. In that view of the matter, we find that the present Appeal is nothing but a pernicious attempt by Jitendra to drag his father in frivolous proceedings. In that view, the Appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,00,000 to be paid by Jitendra to his father, for having caused undue harassment to him at the belated stage of his life. Realistic costs must be imposed to ensure that wrongdoers are denied any profit or advantage from frivolous litigation. We hope that these costs would act as a deterrent for the Appellant in initiating frivolous proceedings and abusing the process of Court," the bench ordered. 

It added, "...Section 105 of the MHA, 2017 is intended to operate as a shield for the protection of persons with mental illness and cannot be permitted to be wielded as a sword against them by an adversarial party. We concur with the view of the learned Single Judge..."

With these observations, the bench dismissed the appeal. 

Appearance:

Jitendra Megh appeared as a Party-in-Person.

Advocates Aditya Sharma, Mohiteshwari Prasad, Sumati Gupta, Amey Pandey and Hitesh Gupta represented the Father. 

Case Title: Jitendra Gorakh Megh vs Gorakh Govind Megh (Appeal 70 of 2026)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 406

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment