District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High 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