Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"Relief Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Marriage Was Denied": High Court Sets Aside Lower Court’s Decision, Directs Medical Examination in Marriage Annulment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi allowed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside a lower court’s refusal to direct medical tests for assessing potency in a marriage annulment case.

The case involved a senior Medical Officer petitioning for the annulment of her marriage with a former MLA and active politician, alleging impotency on the respondent's part, among other claims. The respondent denied the marriage and countered with allegations of blackmail.

"Relief cannot be denied merely because the marriage was denied," the High Court stated that despite the respondent's denial of the marriage, the matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical tests, and this doesn't violate the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The High Court also cited a Supreme Court ruling in the case of Sharda v. Dharmpal, asserting that a court should exercise the power to direct medical tests only if the applicant has a "strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court."

The Family Court in Kurnool had earlier dismissed the petitioner's interim application, contending that the timing of filing for medical tests was inappropriate and the evidence produced only showed a ceremony of betrothal, not an actual marriage.

Justice Bhanumathi said, "It is a matter of appreciation of evidence after the trial is concluded, as to whether the petitioner is able to prove the marriage or not," directing the trial court to proceed with medical tests to determine the potency of the respondent.

This decision has highlighted the significance of the court's power to order medical tests in matrimonial disputes and has set a precedent for future cases where the existence of marriage itself is disputed.

The ruling has been met with mixed reactions, but legal experts believe it could pave the way for more comprehensive and fair adjudications in similar matrimonial disputes.

"There shall be no order as to costs," concluded the High Court, laying down its decision on the revision petition.

Date of Decision: 21.08.2023 

ABC vs XYZ 

Latest Legal News