In a petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against an order dated 05-12-2025 by the Family Court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner (husband) for medical examination of the respondent (wife) was rejected, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed the petition by stating that the said medical examination would be an invasion of privacy.
The husband had filed a divorce petition against his wife on the grounds of cruelty and because she refused to enter into a physical relationship with him. The wife, on the other hand, contended that she was being harassed by dowry demand, cruelty, and acts of sodomy by the husband.
The husband filed the said application for subjecting the wife to a medical examination to ascertain whether she had ever entered into a sexual relationship. This was rejected by the Family Court, noting that the divorce petition was filed only on the grounds of cruelty.
The Court stated that whether the parties entered into a sexual relationship or not was not a ground for divorce, and that the same was also not a ground to declare the marriage as void or voidable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). It was said that a medical examination was unnecessary because impotence had not been alleged.
Further, regarding the allegations of sodomy, the Court said that the same could not be ascertained in the medical examination conducted after many years of the alleged act, and that it would amount to nothing but invasion of privacy and humiliation of the wife.
While referring to State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) 14 SCC 299, the Court said that the recent judicial trend is heavily against conducting a virginity test on a woman and that the presence or absence of a hymen would not be a determinative factor to infer whether the wife had been involved in sexual intercourse.
Thus, the Court did not find any substance in the husband’s plea and dismissed the petition by stating that the virginity test or “two-finger test” of the wife would neither be relevant nor conclusive for the purpose of the divorce petition.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Mohd. Aadil Usmani
For Respondent – None
