TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi 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