Legal Strategy or Delaying Tactic? Rajasthan HC Rejects Plea for Compulsory Medical Testing in Divorce Row

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has firmly closed the door on a husband’s attempt to subject his wife to a battery of forensic tests during matrimonial proceedings . In a pointed order, the court dismissed a writ petition that sought to challenge a trial court’s rejection of a request for mandatory Narco-analysis , polygraph , and DNA testing .

The Backdrop of the Dispute The conflict stems from a divorce petition filed by Smt. Nidhi Jingar against her husband, Bihari Lal Jingar, under Section 13(1)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 . The petition leveled serious allegations of desertion , cruelty , and sexual incapacity against the husband.

During the litigation, and specifically when the trial had reached the stage of final arguments , the petitioner-husband filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) . He argued that he needed to clear his name regarding the "sexual infirmities" attributed to him by his wife. He sought a court-mandated joint medical examination and forensic testing, offering to cover all associated costs. The trial court rejected this application as a belated attempt to delay the final adjudication , prompting the husband’s appeal to the High Court.

Arguments from the Bar Counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court acted in a "predetermined and mechanical manner." He contended that without these tests, the husband was denied a fair opportunity to adduce evidence , claiming these examinations were essential for full and effective adjudication .

Conversely, the resistance focused on procedural integrity and professional ethics . It was noted that the husband had already been afforded ample opportunity to produce evidence throughout the trial. The attempt to introduce forensic testing at the stage of final arguments was characterized as a " fishing expedition " designed to fill lacunae , rather than a genuine pursuit of the truth.

Judicial Analysis: Respecting Personal Autonomy Justice Sanjeet Purohit, presiding as the Vacation Judge, observed that the court cannot function as a machinery for a party to collect evidence that they were otherwise required to provide earlier.

The court engaged extensively with the precedent set in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy , emphasizing that the power to recall or produce evidence is provided for the interest of justice —not as a tool for " mischievous or frivolous " delay. The court underscored that a litigant cannot be compelled to undergo invasive procedures like Narco-analysis or DNA testing against their will, especially when the relevance of such tests to the core issue—impotency—remains unsubstantiated.

Key Observations The judgment offers several definitive takeaways regarding the limits of litigation:

  • "The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials."
  • "If the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae , it should be rejected with heavy costs."
  • "Respondent wife cannot be compelled to undergo such tests without her consent."
  • "The court cannot be called-upon to collect evidence on behalf of a litigant or to fill gaps in evidence, i.e., which a party is under legal obligation to establish."

Final Verdict: A Lesson on Institutional Responsibility Dismissing the writ petition , the Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to re-evaluating evidence. The court concluded that the petitioner's application was not bona fide and constituted a " gross abuse of the process of law ."

As legal experts noted in 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248 , the court's intervention highlights a stricter judicial stance against using discovery procedures as tactical weapons in divorce cases. This order serves as a reminder that the court remains the master of proceedings, intent on preventing " protracting tactics " that undermine the majesty of the legal system.