Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

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

Latest Legal News