Case Study: Sharda v. Dharmpal

“Supreme Court Affirms Power to Order Medical Examination in Matrimonial Cases”

Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 493

Date of Judgment: 28^th March, 2003

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha, Justice Ar. Lakshmanan

Facts

• In this case, the parties were married in 1991 in accordance with the Hindu rites and ceremonies.
• The respondent (husband) filed an application for divorce against the appellant pursuant to Section 12(1)(b) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the grounds of unsoundness of mind, such that petitioner (wife) cannot be reasonably expected to live with him.
• The respondent filed an application asking directions from the court to medically examine the appellant. The appellant objected inter alia on the grounds that the court does not have the jurisdiction to issue such directions.
• Dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial court, the Appellant challenged the decision in the Rajasthan High Court through a revision petition.
• When this was dismissed, the Appellant further appealed the matter to the Supreme Court in an instant appeal.

Judgment of the High Court

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the application of the petitioner and ruled in favor of the respondent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The judgment addresses the court’s power to order a medical examination in matrimonial cases and the potential violation of privacy rights. The court held that while there is no specific statutory provision granting this power, it can be exercised under the inherent powers of the court to ensure justice. Medical evidence is crucial in cases involving mental health grounds for divorce, but the court must be convinced of the necessity for such an examination.

Regarding privacy concerns, the court balanced the individual’s right to privacy with the need to ascertain the truth in matrimonial disputes. It concluded that compelling a party to undergo a medical examination does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution if there is a strong prima facie case and the court justifies its decision. Refusal to comply with such an order can lead to adverse inferences being drawn against the party.

Essentially, the judgment establishes the court’s authority to order medical examinations in appropriate matrimonial cases while safeguarding individual rights through specific conditions and potential consequences for non-compliance.

Key legal issues discussed

1. Whether the matrimonial court has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination?

Yes

The court held that to obtain a divorce decree, the respondent must prove either the petitioner’s incurable insanity or a mental disorder so severe that it renders continued cohabitation unreasonable. Medical testimony plays a significant role in assisting the court to ascertain the degree of mental disorder, though the court should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. However, no statutory law, including the Hindu Marriage Act, grants court the power to compel a party involved in matrimonial proceedings to undergo a medical examination.

The absence of specific clauses in the enactments does not dissuade a court from passing an order which subjects a party to undergo medical examination. The Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as C.P.C) does not have a specific provision but it has an inherent discretionary power under Section 151 of the C.P.C to pass all such orders which aims at providing complete justice to the parties to the suit.

Therefore, the apex court held that it has the power to direct a party to undergo medical examination. Furthermore, the court noted that individuals who have not been officially declared of unsound mind can seek a next friend or guardian under Order 32 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This is possible if the court, after inquiry pursuant to Section 41 of the Lunacy Act, finds that they are mentally incapable of protecting their rights in a lawsuit.

It is crucial to note that the court emphasized the discretionary nature of its power to order a medical examination. In 52^nd para, the court remarked, “If the Court for the purpose envisaged under Order 32 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure or Section 41 of the Indian Lunacy Act can do it suo motu, there is no reason why it cannot do so on an application filed by a party to the marriage.”

The decision to compel such an examination should be based on compelling reasons and exercised judiciously. The court also highlighted the importance of protecting the dignity and privacy of the individual undergoing the examination, and any such order must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards.

2. Whether subjecting a person to a medical test will be in violation of Article 21?

No

The court ruled that in matrimonial cases where divorce is sought on the grounds of unsoundness of mind, impotency, etc, it will be hard to ascertain the veracity of such allegations. If the petitioner negates medical examination by asserting his right to privacy under Article 21, then in most cases it is almost impossible to arrive at a conclusion. Thus, the grounds of rendering divorce will be deemed nugatory.

Since the right to privacy is not expressly conferred upon Article 21 of the Constitution and to give extensive interpretation of the term ‘personal liberty’ will not serve the purpose of justice. Thus, the spouse making allegations has the right to curb the right to privacy of the alleged spouse. The court in such a scenario must reconcile the conflicting interests by balancing the interests involved. The Court referenced several Indian statutes, including the Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 185, 202, 203, 20), the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 53 and 54), the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (Section 3), and the Indian Penal Code (Sections 269 and 270), which authorize medical examinations of accused persons.

The Court expressed confidence that these provisions would withstand any constitutional challenge. In the 86^th para of the judgment, the court stated, “The Court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court. If despite the order of the court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him.”

Therefore, the court has the power to subject a person to undergo medical tests and such an order passed would not violate Article 21. However, the court should exercise such power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case, and the court has sufficient reasons to do so. If the alleged spouse refuses to submit himself for medical examination, the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him.

A person’s refusal to comply with a court-ordered medical examination, despite the order, can lead to a strong presumption against them. Similarly, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act permits courts to draw adverse inferences when a party fails to produce evidence within their control. In light of the aforesaid reasoning, the court ruled that a person subject to medical examination in lieu of the facts cannot be said to be violative of Article 21.