The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong prima facie evidence before ordering a spouse to undergo medical examination for mental disorder, emphasizing the protection of the individual's rights to privacy and dignity.

Piyush Mathur, J.

1. A Post-Graduate lady, who has to her credit a Masters Degree of Science in Botany, has questioned the legality of an order passed on 20-3-2009 by the Family Court in Case No. 74-A/07/HMA (Ajaykant Sharma vs. Smt. Alka Sharma), whereby the Family Court has ordered her to undergo medical examination, on the strength of the oral submissions/pleadings of her husband that she suffers from some mental disorder (without there being any previous medical history or treatment record) while taking a ground of the wife being of unsound mind in terms of section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. The writ petitioner Smt. Alka Sharma was married with respondent-Ajaykant Sharma on 16-5-2005 and a male child was born out of the wedlock, in the year 2006, whereafter sudden disputes arose between the spouses, which resulted in filing of a variety of proceedings before the Family Court, which include wife's petition seeking maintenance under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code (M.Cr.C. No. 242/07) and the present proceeding initiated by the husband Ajaykant Sharma under section 12 or in the alternative under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for seeking declaration of marriage to be void, on the ground of cruel behaviour of wife, due to her suffering from serious mental disorder.

3. Miss Sudha Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner (wife) submits that the Family Court has completely erred in passing the impugned order dated 20-3-2009, whereby the Court has allowed an application preferred under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, for examining the mental condition of the petitioner, even though an application of a similar nature, was dismissed by the Family Court on the previous occasion, by completely ignoring the fact that no evidence or document exists on record to prima facie connect the mental disorder, with the otherwise mentally sound person/petitioner. Miss Sudha Dwivedi further submits that the petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Science (Botany) from Jiwaji University and soon after her marriage, the demand of dowry was raised and the husband and his family members began torturing and harassing her to an extent that her temperament has been adversely affected, however, the same could not be even presumed to be a case of mental disorder or mental derailment/derangement.

4. Shri V. K. Bharadwaj, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband Ajaykant Sharma submits that when the petitioner was examined by the Family Court in proceedings initiated under section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, her conduct surfaced in the statement, which is sufficient enough to believe the mental status of the petitioner, requiring her to be medically examined by the competent doctors. He read over several portions of the statement of the petitioner (submitted as Annexures R/1 and R/2) to demonstrate that the petitioner is one such person, who could not be treated to be a person possessing normal mental faculty and as such the Court has rightly considered the application and correctly exercised the jurisdiction of ordering for medical examination of the petitioner. Shri Bharadwaj has also relied upon an application filed before J.M.F.C., Gwalior, seeking adjournment on account of absence of the petitioner, where a categorical fact of her going for treatment to Bombay was made by her counsel about the absence of the petitioner as also a declaration made by the petitioner herself in writing (Annexures R/4, R/5 and R/6), to demonstrate that the petitioner has admitted that she was undergoing some medication in the past two years. For ready reference, the contents of these documents are quoted hereinbelow;

Reg. Cause of Absence :

Reg. Handwritten Slip :

5. We have heard Miss Sudha Dwivedi, Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V. K. Bharadwaj, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent and have also perused the documents annexed with the pleadings of the Parties and have carefully examined the same.

6. Ms