Matrimonial Courts Cannot Casually Order Psychiatric Examination Of Spouse Without Prima Facie Evidence Of Mental Disorder: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), in a significant ruling, held that a matrimonial court cannot mechanically direct a spouse to undergo a medical examination by a psychiatrist without first satisfying itself of a prima facie case. A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar observed that while courts possess the power to order such tests, the power must be exercised with caution and only when there is sufficient material on record to warrant such a direction.

The respondent-husband instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia), (ib), and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, alleging that the petitioner-wife was suffering from incurable unsoundness of mind. He claimed her behavior was abnormal, she refused physical intimacy, and her parents had suppressed her mental illness. The Trial Court allowed the husband's application to refer the wife for a psychiatric evaluation at the Civil Hospital, Dhule, leading to the present writ petition.

The primary question before the court was whether a Trial Court can direct a medical examination of a spouse solely based on allegations in a divorce petition without any corroborative material. The court was also called upon to determine the threshold of evidence required for a court to exercise its discretionary power under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the CPC and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Matrimonial Courts Possess Power To Order Medical Tests

The Court acknowledged that matrimonial courts are indeed empowered to direct a party to undergo medical examination in proceedings where the mental health of a spouse is a central issue. Referring to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal, the bench noted that such an order does not violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Court Explains Conditions For Ordering Medical Examination

However, the Court emphasized that this power is not absolute and is subject to stringent conditions to prevent misuse. Justice Chapalgaonkar noted that the person seeking such an order must first establish a strong prima facie case. The bench highlighted that the court must satisfy itself regarding the existence of grounds based on the evidence already tendered before passing such an intrusive order.

"The Court should exercise such power, if applicant has strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before Court."

Burden Of Proof In Cases Of Unsoundness Of Mind

The Court observed that under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the burden lies heavily on the petitioner-husband to establish that the spouse’s unsoundness of mind is incurable or of such a degree that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with them. The Court noted that while medical evidence is of "considerable assistance" in reaching such a finding, it cannot be sought as a matter of course.

Mechanical Application Of Law Amounts To Abuse Of Discretion

Scrutinizing the Trial Court's order, the High Court found that the learned Judge had "simply observed" that the court could seek the aid of a medical expert under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC. The Court found that the impugned order failed to reflect any application of mind to the specific pleadings or the lack of material evidence supporting the husband's claims.

"The impugned order nowhere suggests that Court has applied its mind to pleadings and material on record, or has satisfied itself as to existence of grounds for referring petitioner for medical examination."

Requirement To Lead Evidence Before Seeking Medical Report

The Court held that it is expected for a party to first prima facie establish, by leading evidence, that there is material to hold that a medical examination is necessary. Since the husband in this case had not yet led such evidence, the order for a psychiatric exam was deemed premature and "bereft of sufficient reasons."

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the Trial Court's order dated August 2, 2025. However, the Court granted liberty to the respondent-husband to reiterate his prayer for a medical examination after leading necessary evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Trial Court was directed to reconsider any such fresh application and pass a well-reasoned order based on the materials placed before it.

Date of Decision: 15 April 2026