"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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