GRANTS BAIL IN NDPS CASE, HOLDS DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS ALONE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION Foreign Conviction Does Not Shield Accused from Indian Prosecution: Uttarakhand High Court Denies Bail in Bitcoin Money Laundering Case Forfeiture of Earnest Money Must Be Reasonable, No Interest Payable If Buyer Cancels Due to Falling Property Prices: Supreme Court IBPS | Exam Bodies Must Provide Scribes and Extra Time to All Disabled Candidates, Not Just Those With Benchmark Disabilities: Supreme Court Minor Discrepancies in Witness Statements Do Not Discredit Their Reliability," Rules Punjab and Haryana High Court in Murder Case Suspicion, No Matter How Strong, Cannot Replace Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Murder Case Prolonged Incarceration Violates Article 21 – Bail Granted Despite NDPS Act Restrictions: Kerala High Court Kolkata Book Fair Not a Public Function: Calcutta High Court Dismisses VHP's Writ Petition A Gift With Conditions is Not a Gift in Perpetuity – Violation of Purpose Mandates Reversion: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Demand Advocate in Domestic Enquiry Unless Employer’s Representative is a Legally Trained Mind: Bombay High Court Milkman as Scribe Raises Eyebrows: High Court Dismisses Property Claim Over Suspicious Will Contractor Bound by Contractual Terms, No Right to Claim Damages After Accepting Extensions: Supreme Court On Failure of the Highest Bidder, Property Must Be Re-Auctioned, Private Negotiation Impermissible: Karnataka High Court Preventive Detention Without Procedural Compliance is Unconstitutional: Kerala High Court Quashes Detention Order Under KAAPA Courts Are for Litigants, Not the Other Way Around: Madras High Court Overhauls Family Court Procedures Landlord is the Best Judge of His Requirement; Tenant Cannot Dictate Alternative Properties: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Khatedari Rights Cannot Be Claimed Over SC Land Through Adverse Possession: Rajasthan High Court A Law Cannot Be Struck Down on Overruled Precedents: Calcutta High Court Upholds West Bengal Entry Tax Act Producer of Film Is First Owner of Soundtrack Unless Contract States Otherwise: Delhi High Court Affirms Saregama’s Rights Mere Refusal to Repay a Loan Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Under Section 306 IPC: Allahabad High Court Mere Re-Appreciation of Evidence Is Not Permissible in a Second Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Merely Alleging Money Laundering Without Evidence is an Abuse of Legal Process: Bombay High Court Imposed 1 Lakh Cost on ED

No Reason Why Husband Can’t Undergo Potentiality Test If Willing: Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Order for Medical Test in Matrimonial Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has today partially allowed the appeals in the case of Deep Mukerjee v. Sreyashi Banerjee, holding that the husband, who is willing, should undergo a potentiality test as directed by the Trial Court. This decision comes as a critical observation in matrimonial disputes involving allegations of impotency.

The judgement focuses on the permissibility and extent of directing medical tests in matrimonial disputes. The Supreme Court has emphasized the willingness of a party to undergo medical tests as a key factor in deciding such matters.

Deep Mukerjee and Sreyashi Banerjee, married since July 23, 2013, have been living separately since April 2021. The wife filed for divorce, citing the husband’s alleged impotency, while the husband sought restitution of conjugal rights. The Trial Court directed both parties to undergo various medical tests, but this order was overturned by the High Court.

Willingness for Medical Test: The Supreme Court observed, “When the appellant/husband is willing to undergo potentiality test, there is no reason why the High Court should set aside the entire order.” This stance aligns with the precedent set in “Sharda vs. Dharmpal” (2003).

High Court’s Approach Critiqued: The Apex Court noted that the High Court erred in focusing on the conduct of the parties rather than the merits of the Trial Court’s order.

Respect for Individual Autonomy: The Supreme Court’s decision not to compel the wife to undergo tests, respecting her unwillingness, highlights the court’s regard for personal autonomy in sensitive matters.

Modification of High Court Order: The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s order, upholding the part of the Trial Court’s order directing the husband to undergo the potentiality test.

Decision: The Supreme Court, while modifying the High Court’s order, has directed that the husband undergo the potentiality test as initially ordered by the Trial Court. The wife’s tests, however, remain untouched, respecting her choice not to undergo them.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

Deep Mukerjee vs Sreyashi Banerjee

Similar News