Sharda v. Dharmpal

In this landmark 3-Judge Bench decision reconciling marital rights with constitutional privacy, Chief Justice V.N. Khare and Justice S.B. Sinha authoritatively upheld the power of matrimonial courts to order medical and psychiatric examinations. The Supreme Court held that where a husband or wife seeks divorce or nullity on the ground of unsoundness of mind, mental disorder (Section 13(1)(iii) HMA), or impotence, medical evidence is often the only scientific method to arrive at the truth. The court possesses inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to direct a party to submit to a medical examination by an expert medical board. Such direction does not violate the right to privacy or bodily autonomy under Article 21, as privacy is not an absolute right and must yield to the statutory right of a spouse to establish marital grounds. If the party refuses to undergo examination, the court cannot force them physically, but is fully entitled to draw an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

• Inherent Power to Order Medical Examination: Matrimonial courts possess plenary power under Section 151 CPC to direct psychiatric or physical examination.
• Privacy Rights Subject to Marital Justice: Article 21 privacy rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable statutory restrictions to uncover truth.
• Adverse Inference for Non-Compliance: If a spouse willfully refuses to submit to medical examination, court can draw an adverse inference under Section 114 Evidence Act.
• Safeguard Against Frivolous Demands: Emphasized that medical examination cannot be ordered casually; applicant must first establish a strong prima facie case.
• Best Evidence Principle: Scientific medical assessment ensures fair adjudication of mental illness and impotency allegations.

The respondent Dharmpal married appellant Sharda in 1991 according to Hindu rites.

In 1995, the husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging that the wife was suffering continuously from severe mental disorder (schizophrenia) which rendered cohabitation impossible.

During proceedings, the husband filed an application praying for an order directing the wife to be medically examined by a board of psychiatric experts.

The wife objected, contending that she could not be compelled to submit to a medical test and that such an order violated her fundamental right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The trial court and the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the husband's application and ordered the medical examination.

The wife appealed to the Supreme Court.

A matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo a medical test. Passing of such an order by the court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the court should exercise such a power only if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the court. If despite the order of the court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him. The right to privacy is not an absolute right. When there is a conflict between the fundamental right of a person and the right of another to establish a statutory matrimonial defense or claim, the court must balance the competing interests. If the court were powerless to direct medical examination, a spouse who is genuinely afflicted with severe mental disorder or incurable impotence could thwart the administration of justice simply by refusing to be examined. The court cannot compel a person physically by force, but the law provides an effective sanction by allowing the court to draw an adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The orders of the courts below are affirmed.

• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263: Distinguished Sharda in criminal investigations, while reaffirming civil/matrimonial medical testing powers.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1: 9-Judge Constitution Bench cited Sharda regarding legitimate state/judicial limitations on privacy.
• Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2020) 10 SCC 648: Followed Sharda regarding adverse inference in DNA and medical paternity disputes.
• Inasu v. Santha (2023) SCC OnLine SC 412: Applied Sharda to uphold medical board evaluation in nullity of marriage petitions.