Honble 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 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 Secs. 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 5.05.1999. 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 Art. 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 (1), Revamma (Smt.) vs. Shri Shanthappa (2), Shanti Devi vs. Ram Nath (3), M. Venkatachallapati vs. Aroja (4), Gautam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal (5), P.A. Anbu Anandan vs. Sivakumari (6), Ningamma (Smt.) & Anr. vs. Chikkaiah & Anr. (7).

(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 Sec. 5, Sec. 12(1) and Sec. 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 experts 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 Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.

(7). In support of the said contentions the learned Counsel relied upon G. Venkatanarayan vs. Kurupati Laxmi Devi (8), Birendra Kumar Biswas vs. Hemlata Biswas (9), George Swamidoss Joseph vs. Miss Sundari Edward (10) and A.S. Mohammed Ibrahim Ummal vs. Shaik Mohammad Marakayar & Anr. (11).

(8). The relevant statutory provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Secs. 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) either party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage;

(ii) at the time of the marriage, neither party-

(a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind; or

(b) though capable of giving a valid consent, has been suffering from ment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document