Date of the Judgment: 5 April 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 274
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can a court order a husband to undergo a potency test in a divorce case where the wife alleges non-consummation due to the husband’s impotency? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, partially overturning a High Court decision. This case highlights the complexities of medical evidence in marital disputes and the extent to which courts can order medical examinations. The bench comprised Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra, with the judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Background
Deep Mukerjee (the appellant/husband) and Sreyashi Banerjee (the respondent/wife) married on 23 July 2013 in Chennai. They lived in the United Kingdom for 7.5 years before returning to India and residing in the respondent’s father’s property. Disputes arose, leading to their separation in April 2021. The husband claimed the wife had not communicated or joined him since their separation.
The husband filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking restitution of conjugal rights (O.P. No. 2441 of 2021). Subsequently, the wife filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (O.P. No. 2866 of 2021), alleging the marriage was not consummated due to the husband’s impotency.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 July 2013 | Marriage of Deep Mukerjee and Sreyashi Banerjee in Chennai. |
| 7.5 years after marriage | Couple lived in the United Kingdom. |
| April 2021 | Couple separated after disputes. |
| 2021 | Husband filed O.P. No. 2441 of 2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. |
| 2021 | Wife filed O.P. No. 2866 of 2021 seeking divorce, alleging non-consummation due to husband’s impotency. |
| 2023 | Husband filed I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 of 2023 seeking potency test for himself and fertility/mental health tests for both parties. |
| 27 June 2023 | Trial Court allowed the husband’s application for medical tests. |
| 28 November 2023 | High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order. |
| 5 April 2024 | Supreme Court partially allowed the husband’s appeal, ordering a potency test for the husband. |
Course of Proceedings
The husband filed I.A. Nos. 8 & 9 of 2023 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a potency test for himself and fertility and psychological tests for both parties. The Trial Court allowed these applications on 27 June 2023, directing a medical board to be constituted by the Dean of Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai. The results were to be submitted to the court in a sealed cover, with both parties maintaining secrecy.
The wife challenged the Trial Court’s order before the High Court, which allowed the revisions on 28 November 2023, setting aside the Trial Court’s order.
Legal Framework
The case involves the following legal provisions:
- Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: “Restitution of conjugal rights.—When either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, the aggrieved party may apply, by petition to the district court, for restitution of conjugal rights and the court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.” This section allows a spouse to seek the court’s intervention to resume cohabitation.
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: “Divorce.—(1) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party—(ia) has, after the solemnization of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;” This section provides grounds for divorce, including cruelty.
- Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “Opinions of experts.—When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.” This section allows the court to consider expert opinions on matters of science.
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: “Saving of inherent powers of Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.” This section recognizes the inherent powers of the court to make orders for justice.
Arguments
Appellant/Husband’s Arguments:
- The husband argued that since he was willing to undergo a potency test, the High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s order entirely.
- He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharda vs. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493], which allows for medical examinations in certain circumstances.
Respondent/Wife’s Arguments:
- The wife contended that she could not be compelled to undergo any tests, whether fertility or mental health check-ups, if she was unwilling.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Husband’s Submission |
|
| Wife’s Submission |
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The husband’s argument was innovative in that it emphasized his willingness to undergo a medical test as a basis for the court to order such a test.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in this judgment. However, the core issue before the Court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order directing the husband to undergo a potency test, when the husband himself was willing for the same?
The sub-issue that the court dealt with was whether the wife could be compelled to undergo medical tests.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order directing the husband to undergo a potency test? | Partially incorrect. | The Supreme Court held that when the husband is willing to undergo a potency test, the High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s order to that extent. |
| Whether the wife could be compelled to undergo medical tests? | Not Addressed. | The Court did not give any specific direction on this issue, but it did not uphold the Trial Court’s order in so far as it directed the wife to undergo medical tests. |
Authorities
The following authority was considered by the Court:
- Sharda vs. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the husband’s counsel to support the argument that medical examinations can be ordered in certain circumstances.
The following legal provisions were considered by the Court:
- Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Sharda vs. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493] | Supreme Court of India | Referred to by the husband’s counsel to argue that medical tests can be ordered. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Husband’s willingness to undergo potency test. | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s order to this extent. |
| Wife’s unwillingness to undergo any medical tests. | Not specifically addressed, but the Court did not uphold the Trial Court’s order in so far as it directed the wife to undergo medical tests. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Sharda vs. Dharmpal [(2003) 4 SCC 493] | The Court did not explicitly state that it was relying on this case, but the spirit of the judgment is in line with the principle that medical tests can be ordered in certain circumstances. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the husband was willing to undergo a potency test. The Court felt that the High Court had erred in setting aside the Trial Court’s order in its entirety, particularly when the husband had no objection to the test. The Court also noted that the High Court had focused on the conduct of the parties, which was not relevant to the validity of the Trial Court’s order.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Husband’s willingness to undergo the test | 60% |
| High Court’s focus on irrelevant conduct | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Trial Court orders potency test for husband and fertility/mental health tests for both parties.
High Court sets aside the Trial Court’s order.
Supreme Court partially allows husband’s appeal.
Supreme Court orders potency test for husband, upholding Trial Court’s order to that extent.
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the High Court had not provided sufficient justification for setting aside the Trial Court’s order with respect to the husband’s potency test when the husband himself was willing to undergo the test. The court emphasized that the focus should have been on the validity of the Trial Court’s order rather than the conduct of the parties.
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations.
The decision was that the husband must undergo a potency test as directed by the Trial Court.
Reasons for the decision:
- The husband’s willingness to undergo the potency test.
- The High Court’s lack of cogent reasons for setting aside the Trial Court’s order regarding the potency test.
- The High Court’s focus on the conduct of the parties, which was not relevant to the issue.
“Considering the fact situation of the present case, we are satisfied that when the appellant/husband is willing to undergo potentiality test, the High Court should have upheld the order of the Trial Court to that extent.”
“Instead of dwelling on the contentions of the parties qua the merits of the interim applications decided by the Trial Court, the High Court focused on the conduct of the parties which was not at all germane for deciding the issue as to the validity of the order passed by the Trial court.”
“Accordingly, we allow the present appeals in part maintaining the order passed by the Trial Court dated 27.06.2023 insofar as it directs the appellant/husband to take the medical test to determine his potentiality.”
There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that when a party is willing to undergo a medical test that is relevant to the case, the court can order such a test. The Court also emphasized that the focus should be on the legal merits of the case rather than the conduct of the parties.
The decision may have implications for future cases involving medical evidence in marital disputes. It suggests that courts may be more inclined to order medical tests when a party is willing to undergo them.
No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case.
Key Takeaways
- If a party is willing to undergo a medical test that is relevant to the case, the court may order such a test.
- Courts should focus on the legal merits of the case rather than the conduct of the parties.
- High Courts should provide cogent reasons for setting aside orders of Trial Courts.
The decision may lead to more medical tests being ordered in marital disputes, especially where issues of impotency or fertility are raised.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the husband’s potency test be conducted within four weeks and the report be submitted within two weeks thereafter. The test is to be conducted in the manner indicated by the Trial Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that when a party is willing to undergo a medical test relevant to the case, the court can order such a test, and the High Court should not set aside the order of the Trial Court to that extent without any cogent reason. This case does not change the existing position of law but clarifies the application of existing principles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court partially allowed the husband’s appeal, directing him to undergo a potency test as ordered by the Trial Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court’s order to that extent, especially when the husband was willing to undergo the test. This decision underscores the importance of medical evidence in marital disputes and the court’s power to order such tests when relevant.