The court has the discretion to order a party to undergo a mental health examination in matrimonial disputes, and such orders will be upheld if found to be properly exercised.

1. The civil revision petitioner/respondent/wife has projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 05.06.2008 made in I.A.No.13 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Judge, Mannargudi, in allowing the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/husband and thereby directing the revision petitioner/wife to appear before the Director, Institute for Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010 for physical examination by a team of psychiatric specialists to be nominated by the Director, Institute for Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai and to give opinion and report in regard to the mental health condition of the wife/revision petitioner herein.

2. The trial Court, while passing the order in I.A.13 of 2008 in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2007, among other things has observed by referring the revision petitioner/wife to the Institute for Mental Health, Kilpauk, Chennai for the purpose of examination and for report, would be a final and conclusive one and had resultantly allowed the application without costs.

.3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/wife contends that the revision petitioner/wife is in sound state of mind and that the trial court has not appreciated this fact in proper perspective and if the revision petitioner is actually unsound then, the filing of the main matrimonial proceedings by the respondent/husband is per se not maintainable before law and the trial Court ought to have allowed the revision petitioner/wife to examine the Doctor, who treated her and since the petitioner/wife has been examined in open Court and has deposed properly, the trial Court ought to have dismissed the application and therefore, prays for allowing the revision petitioner to prevent oppression of justice.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner cites a decision in Smt. Shanthi v. V. Vijayaraghavan, (2002 -2- L.W. 701), wherein this Court has inter alia held that evidence does not make out that the wife is suffering from incurable disease and from mental disease of such nature, which was suppressed and not disclosed to the husband.

5. A perusal of the petition in H.M.O.P.No.43 of 2007 filed by the husband at para-13 shows that the revision petitioner/wife is on tablet CARBAMAZEPINE 200 mg (MAZETOL) and RISPERIDONE 2 mg (RUMA 2 mg) at night and during morning on CARBAMAZEPINE alone; that after such medication the respondent will have slurring of speech at least for ½ an hour; that thereafter the respondent would go to sleep and fully be lethargic; and that due side effect of CARBAMAZEPINE the respondent has hearing disturbances in her ears. It is the case of the respondent/husband that the revision petitioner/wife always cry and laugh at loudly and simultaneously two, etc.

.6. On going through the order passed by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has exercised its discretion in proper and effective way in allowing the interlocutory application filed by the respondent/husband and this Court sitting in revision does not find any illegality or patent irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court and resultantly, the revision is hereby dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband is quite fair enough to submit that the husband is ready to bear all the expenses incurred in connection with the medical examination including transportation charges. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petitioner/Wife is given liberty to file a memo before the trial Court in regard to the expenditure incurred in connection with the medical examination and on such memo being filed, the trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order in directing the husband to remit the same into the Court or to pay directly to the revision petitioner/wife though Guardian.

7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observations. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there will