Back
MP High Court Rejects Husband's Bid for Wife's Medical Examination, Says Cannot Be Roving Inquiry
The has set aside a trial court order directing a wife to undergo medical examination in divorce proceedings, ruling that such a direction cannot be used to conduct a "," particularly after the evidence stage is closed.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, presiding over a single bench, allowed the wife's petition challenging an order passed by the District Judge, Ashoknagar, on , in a divorce case filed by the husband under .
Case Background
The couple married on , and lived together until . The husband then filed for divorce alleging cruelty, which the wife denied in her written statement while expressing willingness to resume cohabitation. Both parties led their evidence, and the matter was set for final arguments.
At this advanced stage, on , the husband moved an application under seeking a medical examination of his wife, claiming she had undergone three operations before marriage. The wife opposed the application, but the district court allowed it, leading her to approach the High Court.
Arguments Presented
For the wife (petitioner): Counsel argued that the application was filed after both sides had closed evidence, without any foundation laid in the original petition or testimony. No witness had testified about the alleged operations, nor was any suggestion put to the wife or her witnesses. The husband was effectively seeking to collect evidence after the trial had concluded, which could not be permitted. Citing Sharda v. Dharampal (2003) 4 SCC 493, counsel submitted that while matrimonial courts have power to order medical examination, it requires a case and sufficient material.
For the husband (respondent): Counsel and contended that the medical examination was necessary to establish the wife's physical condition, which had allegedly led her to refuse marital relations, constituting cruelty. They argued that the court could exercise to obtain , relying on Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511 regarding and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709 on the relevance of expert opinion.
Legal Analysis: No Foundation for Roving Inquiry
The High Court examined the principles laid down in Sharda v. Dharampal (supra) and observed that while the power to direct medical examination exists, it is discretionary and cannot be exercised mechanically. The court must have sufficient material, and the applicant must establish a case.
The bench noted that the application was moved after evidence had concluded, and the record did not disclose any material suggesting that medical examination was necessary for determining any issue already framed. Crucially, there was no evidence that the wife had ever refused to accompany the husband to a doctor or undergo treatment.
"The allegation regarding the petitioner having undergone three operations also does not, by itself, furnish sufficient foundation for directing her medical examination,"
the court stated.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"Once the parties had completed their evidence and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments, permitting a medical examination without demonstrating would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and would enable the respondent to collect additional evidence in support of a case which had already been tried."
"The power to obtain such evidence cannot be converted into a means for conducting a ."
"The impugned order, therefore, does not disclose the requisite application of mind to the parameters governing exercise of such ."
Court's Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the district court's order dated , and dismissed the husband's application for medical examination. The matrimonial proceedings are to continue on the basis of the pleadings and evidence already on record.
The ruling reinforces that a party cannot seek medical examination of a spouse as an to fill gaps in evidence. It emphasises that such directions impinge on personal liberty and , and courts must ensure a before issuing them.
