2003 (3) TMI 739 - SC - Indian Laws

Matrimonial Court can order medical exams for divorce on mental health grounds under Hindu Marriage Act

SHARDA Versus DHARMPAL

The Supreme Court held that a Matrimonial Court can direct a party to undergo a medical examination to establish unsoundness of mind for divorce under the ... - Issues for Consideration1. Whether a Matrimonial Court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examinationRs.2. Whether passing of such an order would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaRs.A. Power of the Court to Direct a Party to Undergo Medical ExaminationThe Supreme Court examined whether a Matrimonial Court can compel a party to undergo a medical examination. It was noted that for granting a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the petitioner must establish that the respondent's unsoundness of mind is incurable or that their mental disorder is such that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them. Medical testimony, while not imperative, is of considerable assistance to the court. The court emphasized that the Hindu Marriage Act does not explicitly empower courts to compel medical examinations, but it does not preclude them from doing so either. The court can exercise its inherent powers u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass such orders for doing complete justice. The court also referenced various legal precedents and statutes from other jurisdictions, such as the Family Law Reform Act, 1987 in England, which explicitly provide for such powers.B. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of IndiaThe court addressed whether compelling a medical examination violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was observed that the right to privacy, while recognized under Article 21, is not absolute and must be balanced against compelling public interest. The court cited several cases, including M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra and Kharak Singh v. State of UP, to illustrate that the right to privacy can be subject to restrictions. The court also noted that in certain circumstances, such as determining the mental health of a party in matrimonial disputes, the court's directive for a medical examination does not violate Article 21. The court emphasized that such orders should not be issued for roving inquiries and must be based on a strong prima facie case with sufficient material.Conclusion1. A matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo a medical test.2. Passing of such an order by the court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.3. The court should exercise such power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the court. If the respondent refuses to submit to the medical examination despite the court's order, the court is entitled to draw an adverse inference against them.The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld. No order as to costs was made.