Very important point
A matrimonial court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination. Passing of such an order would not be in violation of right of privacy/personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 5(2)(b), 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii)—Whether a party to divorce proceeding on ground of incurability of unsound mind can be compelled to a medical examination? (Yes)—Whether compelling a person to undergo a medical examination by order of the matrimonial court would be violative of right to ‘personal liberty’ guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India? (No) High Court affirmed order of ADJ directing appellant to submit herself to medical examination on the question whether she is of sound mind—Whether correct? (Yes) — Appeal dismissed — (Constitution of India Lunacy Act — Section 41).
       Held : To sum up, our conclusions are
       1. A matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test.
       2. Passing of such an order by the court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
       3. However, the Court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court. If despite the order of the court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him.
       Subject to the observations made hereinbefore we are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed a jurisdictional error in passing the impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 81 and 82)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the power of a matrimonial court to order a medical examination and its relationship with Article 21 of the Constitution of India:

A matrimonial court possesses the inherent power to direct a party to undergo a medical examination to determine if they suffer from unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, or insanity, particularly in divorce proceedings under Sections 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Compelling a person to undergo a medical examination by the order of a court does not violate the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as this right is not absolute and can be subject to restrictions based on compelling public interest or the rights of others (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Such an order should only be passed if the applicant has established a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the court to justify the necessity of the examination (!) (!) (!) .
If a respondent refuses to submit to a medical examination despite a valid court order, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against them (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court's power to order such examinations is supported by inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and specific provisions like Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 41 of the Indian Lunacy Act, which allow for the examination of persons of unsound mind (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
While there is no specific statutory provision in the Hindu Marriage Act empowering the court to issue such directions, the lack of an express provision does not preclude the court from exercising this power to arrive at the truth (!) (!) .
The court must ensure that the examination is conducted by a properly qualified psychiatrist or psychoanalyst and that the procedure does not become a "roving inquiry" or violate the natural delicacy and sensibility of the parties (!) (!) (!) .
The court has a duty to balance the competing interests: the right to privacy of the individual against the right of the other spouse to seek a divorce on grounds of mental incapacity and the need to ascertain the truth (!) (!) (!) (!) .
International precedents and comparative laws (such as those in England and the USA) support the view that medical tests in civil litigation, especially concerning parentage or fitness, are permissible when necessary to establish facts, provided they are not arbitrary (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The right to privacy, while read into Article 21, is subject to reasonable restrictions, and compelling a person to give a blood specimen or undergo a medical test for the purpose of divorce does not fall under the immunity of Article 20 against self-incrimination (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Judgment

S.B. Sinha, J.—Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to a medical examination is the core question involved in this appeal. This question arises out of a judgment dated 17-11-1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision Revision Petition No. 1414/99 dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein questioning an order of the Addl. District & Session Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh Camp Sangaria dated 8-10-1999 directing to submit herself to medical examination on the question as to whether she is of unsound mind.

2. The parties herein were married on 26.6.1991 according to the Hindu rites. On or about 3.6.1995, the respondent filed an application for divorce against the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. He filed an application seeking directions for medical examination of the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The appellant objected thereto inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to pass such directions. By an order dated 8.10.1999 the said application was allowed directing the appellant to submit herself to the medical examination. Aggrieved by the said order, she filed a Revision Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

3. Mr. Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant herein has principally raised two contentions in support of this appeal. Firstly, compelling a person to undergo a medical examination by an order of the Court would be violative of right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, in absence of a specific empowering provision, a court dealing with matrimonial cases cannot subject a party to the lis to undergo medical examination against his/ her volition. In the event, if a party does not undergo such medical examination, the Court may merely draw an adverse inference.

4. The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contentions relied upon Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt vs. Madhuriben (AIR 1963 Gujarat 250), Smt. Revamma vs. Shri Shanthappa (AIR 1972 Mysore 157), Shanti Devi vs. Ram Nath (AIR 1972 P&H 270), M. Venkatachallapati vs. Aroja (AIR 1981 Madras 349), Gautam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal (AIR 1993 SC 2295), P.A. Anbu Anandan vs. Sivakumari (AIR 1999 Madras 232), Smt. Ningamma and Another vs. Chikkaiah and Another (AIR 2000 Kar. 50).

5. Ms. Nanita Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that a Matrimonial Court is required to arrive at a finding as to whether the appellant herein had been suffering from unsoundness of mind, mental disorder or insanity by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 5, Section 12(1) and Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As such a state of mind of a party to the marriage may render the marriage voidable, the Court is entitled to take the expert s opinion in this behalf so as to enable it to satisfy itself as regard the existence of the conditions for grant of a decree for divorce.

6. The learned counsel further contended that the exposure to medical examination aided by scientific data would not infringe the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. In support of the said contentions the learned counsel relied upon G. Venkatanarayan vs. Kurupati Laxmi Devi (AIR 1985 A.P. 1), Birendra Kumar Biswas vs. Hemlata Biswas (AIR 1921 Cal. 459), George Swamidoss Joseph vs. Miss Sundari Edward {(1954) 67 Mad LW 676} and A.S. Mohammad Ibrahim Ummal vs. Shaik Mohammad Marakayar and another (AIR 1949 Mad. 292).

8. The relevant statutory provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Section 5, 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii)) for adjudication of this case are outlined as follows :

"5. CONDITIONS FOR A HINDU MARRIAGE—A marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely,–

(i) neither party has a spouse living at the time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 365

Very important pointA matrimonial court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination. Passing of such an order would not be in violation of right of privacy/personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Cases Referred (17)

Very important point
A matrimonial court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination. Passing of such an order would not be in violation of right of privacy/personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.