IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the power of a matrimonial court to order a person to undergo a medical test in cases related to marriage and impotency.

ORDER

B. S. Bhanumathi, J. - This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 25.05.2022, dismissing I.A.No.436 of 2018 in O.P.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, filed under Section 75E and Section 151 CPC read with Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to direct the respondent to undergo medical examination by Dr. G. V. Krishna, Urologist Gowri Gopal Hospital, Rtd. Professor, Medical College, Kurnool, and Dr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Psychologist, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, or any competent doctor to assess his status of potency and to give scientific opinion regarding the potency of the respondent in respect of consummation of marriage.

2. Heard Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner filed main petition to annul the marriage, dated 20.04.2016, between the petitioner and the respondent and also for grant of damages/compensation of Rs.1 crore to the petitioner, besides direction for return of dowry of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and also for grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards marriage expenses and costs of the petition.

4. The petitioner is a senior Medical Officer from 2010 and was also a Medical Officer since 2006 in the Government Unani Hospital, Kurnool. The respondent is a former MLA of Kodumur and at present, he is an active politician affiliated to a political party in the State of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 20.04.2016 and the marriage was not consummated owing to the impotency of the respondent. Further, the petitioner alleged the misbehavior of the respondent, viz., physically harassing her and also demanding her to bring additional dowry, besides dowry in cash and gold ornaments already given.

5. The petition was opposed by the respondent by filing his counter denying the marriage and claiming that on 14.06.2016, the family members of both parties decided to celebrate the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent and that the marriage was not performed owing to the conduct of the petitioner which the respondent could know thereafter only and both of them expressed unwillingness for the marriage, but later, the petitioner filed criminal cases and this petition for annulment of marriage etc to blackmail for money due to her greed.

6. The petitioner filed I.A.No.436 of 2018 to prove her case with scientific evidence. The petition was opposed mainly on the ground that when there is no marriage and there is no relationship of wife and husband, the petition lacks merit.

7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition making the observations regarding the proof of marriage and also stating that the matter is coming up for arguments and at this fag-end of the stage of the proceedings, the petition was filed.

8. Having been aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief claimed by the petitioner is within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and that the ground taken by the revision petitioner can be decided only by the opinion of an expert. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal, AIR 2003 SC 3450 and a decision of the then Andhra Pradesh High Court in G.Venkatanarayana v. Kurupati Laxmi Devi, AIR 1985 AP 1.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that without there being any evidence of the alleged marriage, granting the relief claimed by the petitioner amounts to collection of evidence which has no relevance. He further submitted that the evidence so far placed by the petitioner would only show the ceremony of betrothal, but not marriage as alleged. He