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 (!) (!) (!) (!) .