MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

"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