Order of the Family Court that the revision petitioner must undergo a medical examination of her genitalia, was quashed by the Madras High Court in the case of Natchal v V Chokkalingam (CRP (PD) No. 942 of 2022) through Justice R N Manjula.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The husband filed a petition to have his wife’s marriage declared null and invalid on the grounds that she is unsuited for marriage, and she refused to work with him to maintain a happy marriage, and has admitted to having irregular periods and hormonal imbalance.
The wife was the subject of a medical examination request throughout the pendency of this process on the grounds that she had self-reported having irregular periods and a hormonal imbalance for which she had sought treatment, but that no document had been given to substantiate this claim. The petition ordering the wife’s medical check-up was therefore approved by the Additional Sub Court in Coimbatore. The wife filed the current civil revision petition to contest this.
The revision petitioner’s attorney claimed that the Trial Judge also ordered an examination of the revision petitioner’s genital organs under the pretence of referring the revision petitioner for treatment for her health issues, but the Trial Judge’s order went beyond the scope of the pleadings made in the original petition and was only intended to harm the revision petitioner’s self-esteem.
It’s interesting to note that in response to the primary petition for an annulment of marriage, the wife claimed that the husband refused to share a bed with her and that he refused to submit to a medical examination even after she pleaded with him to do so. When the revision petitioner began experiencing irregular periods, she informed the respondent, and the two of them went for a medical examination; even after the doctor advised him to do so, the husband neglected to present the results of his specialist visit.
The court stated that it would have been preferable if the trial judge had mandated that both parties have medical examinations in light of these types of claims. When the revision petitioner claims that her main issue is a hormonal imbalance and that she does not have any structural genital defects, her condition cannot be interpreted as impotence.
It was observed by the Court that the Trial Judge has gone to some extent farther and observed in his order that the revision petitioner should prove enough that she is fit to have sexual intercourse and to have a child. The Trial Judge mandated that the revision petitioner undergo genital examinations in addition to those pertaining to irregular periods and hormonal imbalance.
Thus, the Court noted that subjecting the revision petitioner to a medical examination, particularly one that included examining her genitalia, would only have a negative impact on her self-esteem given that she herself had admitted that the marriage had not been consummated and that the reason for it was the respondent’s lack of cooperation.
Accordingly, the Court instructed the Family Court to give the appropriate decision based on the evidence on record since the Trial appears to have been concluded and the matter is at the stage of rendering judgement rather than instructing the revision petitioner wife for a medical examination.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL