This article is written by Prashant Prasad. It deals with the facts, issues, and arguments presented by the appellant and respondent, the various legal provisions involved, and the judgement that was delivered by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sharda vs. Dharampal (2003). The present article deals with the various provisions pertaining to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and other relevant legal concepts, offering a comprehensive understanding of the court’s power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to make such orders which are necessary for the ends of justice.  

Introduction 

In the current scenario, there has been a boom in technological advancement, but at the same time, integration of such technology with the judiciary remains limited. Many major issues have been faced by the judiciary while adopting technology to maintain the balance between the rights of an individual and achieving justice. However, in spite of the present issues relating to technology, many courts have emphasised the importance of technology in resolving complex legal matters. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003), has emphasised the importance of using technology in matrimonial cases.

The fundamental rights are basic human rights, and they must be protected in any scenario. The use of technology in marital cases might affect the rights of individuals, and whether such use of technology is contrary to the fundamental right, i.e., the right to privacy, is the matter of question in the present case. The Supreme Court of India in the present case recognised the importance of using technology in order to resolve matrimonial cases. It was ruled by the Apex Court that the matrimonial court does have the power to subject the parties to a medical examination if the situation demands it. The present case comprehensively deals with the practical importance of technology while delivering the judgement relating to any matrimonial dispute.

Download Now

Background of the case 

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is the legislation that governs marriages among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. This Act has undergone multiple amendments to cater to the needs of a changing society while safeguarding the rights of the parties involved. Section 12 of the Act provides the various conditions that determine the legal validity of a marriage. This Act further provides the provisions of divorce and judicial separation, based on which a marriage can be dissolved on the basis of different situations. Section 13 of the Act discusses the various grounds on the basis of which the marriage could be dissolved, and in the present case, the husband has also contested one of the grounds under this section for the dissolution of their marriage.

Further, this Act also provides provisions for maintenance or alimony in cases of separation among the spouses. The Act includes provisions for maintenance and alimony in order to make sure that legal remedies are provided to the wives and children who are left financially vulnerable by separation. This legislation holds vital significance in preserving the interests of families and couples, but at the same time, judicial intervention and judgement play a crucial role, as in the case of Sharada vs. Dharampal (2003), which holds the importance of marriage, legal and social status of marriage, medical examination, etc.

Details of the case

  • Case Name: Sharda vs. Dharmpal
  • Name of the court: The Supreme Court of India
  • Bench of Judges: V.N. Khare, S.B. Sinha, and Ar. Lakshmanan
  • Author of judgement: S.B. Sinha
  • Appellant: Sharda
  • Respondent: Dharmpal
  • Date of judgement: 28 March 2003 
  • Citation: AIR 2003 SC 3450, (2003) 4 SCC 493
  • Case category: Civil Appeal

Facts of Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003)

In the present case, husband and wife were married on 26th June, 1991, according to Hindu rituals. On 3rd June, 1995, the husband (i.e., respondent) filed an application for divorce against her wife (i.e., appellant). The petition for divorce was filed under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act on the grounds of unsoundness of mind on the part of the wife. Subsequently, on 5th May, 1999, the husband filed an application for the medical examination of his wife. Due to the submission of the application for the medical examination, the wife strongly opposes it, arguing that the matrimonial court has no jurisdiction to issue such an order. Therefore, the major issue for the determination before the lower court was whether the court has the inherent power to direct any of the parties to a medical examination for the determination of unsoundness of mind. The court also considered whether such an order would infringe on the right to privacy of individuals or the integrity of their bodies.

Despite the objections made by the appellant, the court, on 8th October, 1999, ordered the medical examination of the wife. Aggrieved by the order of the lower court, the wife filed a revision petition before the High Court, which was dismissed, and finally, the case arrived before the Supreme Court of India by way of appeal. The Supreme Court of India reviewed various facts of the case to adjudicate the matter effectively. The following facts were noted:

  • The couple married on 26th June, 1991, according to the Hindu rituals.
  • The husband filed a divorce petition against the wife under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act.
  • The lower court and the High Court of Rajasthan directed the wife to undergo a medical examination to ascertain her mental health.
  • Aggrieved by the decisions of subordinate courts, the wife approached the Apex Court to quash the order given.

Issues raised 

  • Whether the matrimonial court has the power to direct the party to undergo a medical examination?
  • Whether the passing of such an order would be violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

Arguments of the parties

Appellants 

The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kaushik, submitted that:

  • Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the “right to life and personal liberty,” and the right to privacy comes under the ambit of this Article. The court’s order compelling the appellant to undergo the medical examination is violative of the right to privacy.
  • It was further contended that under the current empowering provision, the matrimonial court does not have the authority to compulsorily direct the party to undergo the medical examination. Furthermore, it was added that if the party refuses to undergo such a medical examination, then the court may merely draw the adverse inference.
  • Based on the above contentions, the learned counsel relied on legal precedents such as Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt vs. Madhuriben (1963), in which it was ruled by the court that no adverse inference can be drawn for refusing to submit to an illegal order. The same was the matter of question in the present case. The counsel further referred to the case of Shanti Devi vs. Ram Nath (1972), in which the Punjab-Haryana High Court quashed the order of the lower court, dismissing the application of the wife and praying that the husband be directed to undergo observation at the mental hospital. The case of Smt. Revamma vs. Sri Shantappa (1971) was referred by the learned counsel, in which the Karnataka High Court ruled that “it is not open to the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order a medical examination of a party against the consent of such party”. The counsel also referred to the case of P.A. Anbu Anandan vs. Sivakumari (1998), in which it was established by the Madras High Court that the Court cannot compel a person to submit himself or herself for a medical examination.

Respondent

The learned counsel for the respondent, Ms. Nanita Sharma, submitted that:

  • The matrimonial court needs to arrive at a finding as to whether the party is suffering from unsoundness of mind, mental disorder, or insanity. Section 5, Section 12(1)(b), and Section 13(1)(iii) of the Act provide the grounds for divorce based on unsoundness of mind or mental disorder, and therefore the ascertainment of such facts is of paramount importance in order to arrive at the proper decision.
  • It was further submitted that the court is empowered to take the expert opinion to satisfy itself in regard to the existence of conditions for granting the decree of divorce.
  • The medical examination of the parties, aided by scientific data, would not infringe on the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • Based on the above contentions, the learned counsel relied on legal precedents such as G. Venkatanarayan vs. Kurupati Laxmi Devi (1984), in which it was held by the Andhra High Court that the medical examination aided by scientific data cannot be construed as the deprivation of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The counsel further referred to the case of Birendra Kumar Biswas vs. Hemlata Biswas (1920), in which it was ruled by the Calcutta High Court that “concealment of a loathsome and insurable form of syphilis is recognized as a fraud sufficient to warrant divorce”. Therefore, it can be inferred that concealment of the mental element can give rise to the ground of divorce. 

Legal aspects involved in Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003)

Provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

  • Section 5: Outlines five important conditions that are necessary to render a valid marriage. If these conditions are not complied then marriage may become void or voidable. Therefore, for a valid solemnization of marriage among Hindus, these conditions must be fulfilled. 
  • Section 12: This provision discusses voidable marriages, these marriages are valid marriages unless they are avoided by the petition on the part of any of the parties. 
  • Section 13(1)(iii): This section provides mental disorders as one of the valid grounds on the basis of which a petition for divorce can be presented before the court. Under this Section, it has been specified that if any of the parties to the marriage is incurable of unsound mind or is suffering continuously with such a kind of mental disorder in a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably expect to leave with the respondent for the rest of their lives, then on the basis of that, a divorce petition can be filed.  

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”. Therefore, under this Article, the right to life and the right to personal liberty are considered as fundamental rights. The Supreme Court of India has consistently considered this right as the ‘Heart of Fundamental Rights’. This right provides protection against any arbitrary action. Even if the arbitrary action is being performed by the government, an individual has a right to approach the judiciary with the contention that one of his/her vital rights is being infringed because of such an arbitrary action. However, if anybody is deprived of his right to life and personal liberty, then it must be done through due process of law and not otherwise.

Therefore, it is right to say that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that an individual’s rights and freedoms should remain protected by law and cannot be taken away without a fair legal process.

Right to privacy under Article 21

Privacy as a right can be defined as an individual’s right to keep their personal life free from interference by others. This ‘other’ can be any individual, group of persons, government, organisation, etc. The ‘right to privacy’ is being recognized by various treaties on international human rights. Such privacy as a right is not only limited to personal or private life; it extends beyond that and includes within it various aspects such as informational privacy, sanctity of family life, marriage, bodily integrity, etc.

Under the Indian Constitution, the right to privacy is considered as a fundamental right. Initially, the right to privacy was considered as one of the aspects that comes under the ambit of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. But the judiciary, by way of various precedents, has expounded this right as a standalone fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution

Article 20 of the Indian Constitution provides protection with respect to the conviction for offences. There are three clauses under Article 20, which are as follows:

  • The first clause establishes that no person should be convicted of an offence except for a violation of the law, which is in force at the time when such a crime has been committed.
  • The second clause establishes the concept of double jeopardy; it states that no person shall be convicted more than once for the same offence based on the same set of facts.
  • The third clause establishes that no person can be compelled to give evidence against him/her, which can be further used during the trial.

Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act

This Section deals with the court’s power to presume certain facts, which the court thinks are likely to have happened. In presuming certain things, due consideration is being given to “the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business in their relation to the facts of the particular case”.

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, gives inherent power to courts on the basis of which any order can be made that is necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the court. The power granted under this Section is of vital importance, and it can be used to rectify errors, issue interlocutory orders, set aside orders that are not in the best interest of the parties, rectify judgments, etc. The prime consideration behind the applicability of this Section under these circumstances is to safeguard the integrity of the entire judicial process.

Judgment in Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003)

The court was of the opinion that in order to grant the decree of divorce, the petitioner must establish that there is unsoundness of mind on the part of the respondent that is incurable to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably expect to live the rest of life with his/her spouse. The court stated that the medical evidence for arriving at such decisions may not be of vital importance, but it may serve as assistance to the court. The Court considered a sound mind as a key to a happy and prosperous marriage; thus, the parties to the marriage must have a sound and normal mind in order to live a happy married life. On the contrary, if any of the parties are suffering from unsoundness of mind, then it may raise the cause of action, and thereby the application may be filed under Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for seeking a divorce. The court held that divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) can be granted if it is established that the unsoundness of the mind is not curable.

In any matrimonial case, if the divorce is sought on grounds such as impotence, schizophrenia (a severe mental disorder that affects the way of thinking), etc., then, under that scenario, without clear medical evidence, it would be difficult to ascertain the fact whether the allegations made by the spouse are correct or not. If an individual objects to the medical examination on the ground that it violates their fundamental rights as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, then it would be impossible to reach a conclusion. Therefore, the court, while doing an extensive interpretation of the right to privacy under the ambit of Article 21, concluded that this right cannot be treated as an absolute right and that some limitations have to be imposed when there is a clash between two competing interests. It was held by the court that to arrive at satisfaction and to protect the rights of the party, the court may pass an appropriate order, and such an order would not be violative of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was further added that the court should not start a broad and unfocused investigation, and there must not be a misuse of discretionary power. Before passing such an order, the court should find that the applicant has established a strong prima facie case. It was noted that despite the order of the court, if the person so directed refuses to submit himself/herself for the medical examination, then a strong adverse inference would be drawn. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, enables the court to draw adverse inferences if the party does not produce the relevant evidence that is under his/her power or possession. The court was of the opinion that under civil litigation, parties do not have constitutional protection under Article 20 of the Indian Constitution, and further relying on Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and other legal precedents, it was ruled that the court has inherent power under this Section to pass any order for doing complete justice to the parties in a suit. 

Therefore, it was finally concluded by the court that the matrimonial court has the power to direct an individual to undergo a medical examination. Such an order is not violative of the “right to life and personal liberty” as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

Analysis of Sharda vs. Dharmpal (2003) 

The Supreme Court of India, in this case, emphasised the importance and justification behind the inculcation of medical examination in matrimonial cases in contemporary times of changing society. As technology and medical science are burgeoning at a rapid rate, they can have a significant contribution in resolving cases effectively and efficiently, as demonstrated in some of the recent cases. In the case relating to the matrimonial dispute, medical assistance plays a pivotal role in ascertaining some of the complex situations that might be impossible without the help of such technology. With the help of medical technology, many disputes can be resolved with ease. With the emergence of these technologies, issues pertaining to infertility, impotency, mental disorders, etc. can now be easily inferred, which marks one of the great steps towards the resolution of matrimonial disputes.  

Before the present case, there was no specific provision granting courts the authority to order a compulsory medical examination to determine unsoundness of mind. Moreover, some of the courts used to be in a dilemma about passing such an order, even when they believed that such an element might be the relevant factor in deciding the case. But in the present case, the court has clarified the biggest dilemma, and taking reference to Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was clarified by the Apex Court that it is the inherent power of the court under this provision to order compulsory medical examination. As a result, this judgement has made it easier for the courts to consider unsoundness of mind as one of the vital factors in divorce. This ruling of the Supreme Court marks one of the landmark precedents as it forms the guiding jurisprudence for the lower courts with regard to the decision of when to administer the medical examination and when not to administer it.

Cases referred and their impact on the judgement 

The Supreme Court of India referred to these pivotal judgements that affected the ratio decidendi of the present case. By examining these judgments, the court was able to address the various issues and questions related to the case. While addressing the present case, it is pertinent to acknowledge some of the related legal precedents that were not expressly referred to by the court but offered critical insights on the present issue. 

R. Lakshmi Narayan vs. Shanti (2001)

In this case, the husband wanted to divorce his wife on the grounds of a mental disorder. It was held by the court that no documentary evidence was provided to prove the fact that the wife was suffering from mental illness. Moreover, the wife disagreed with the claim made by the husband. As a result, the trial court as well as the High Court ruled in favour of the wife, and it was eventually held that the court is not a medical board, and based on the fact of the statement of the respondent, the mental state of a person cannot be declared.  

Ram Narain Gupta vs. Smt. Rameshwari Gupta (1988)

In this case, the court was of the opinion that under Section 13 of the Act, there is no relevance of a degree of soundness of mind to establish it as a stronger ground for divorce. Furthermore, it was held in the case that the burden of proof for demonstrating the required degree of mental illness as the ground of divorce is on the spouse who claims such mental illness. 

The court, through its decision and interpreting the previous ruling, justified the evolution of the judicial decisions as the situation demanded. Before this decision, there was no precedent that allowed the parties to undergo the compulsory medical examination through the court’s intervention, but this case marks a landmark precedent allowing for the medical examination to ascertain the truthfulness of the case. The various legal precedents that were referred by the court are as follows:

A.S. Mohammad Ibrahim Ummal vs. Shaik Mohammad Marakayar and Anr (1948)

In this case, it was held by the Madras High Court that when the question arises regarding the unsoundness of mind, either under Order 32 Rule 15 or as a substantial issue under the suit, then the court has jurisdiction to inquire into the case as to whether the individual is really of an unsound mind or is suffering from mental infirmity.

Kharak Singh vs. The State of UP & Ors. (1962)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right guaranteed under the Indian Constitution, and therefore, the attempt to ascertain the movement of an individual is merely a way through which privacy is evaded, but it is not an infringement of a fundamental right as guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.

Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (1975)

In this case, it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the “right to privacy in any event will necessarily have to go through the process of case-by-case development.” Therefore, even if it is assumed that the right to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech and expression creates a separate right to privacy, this right is fundamental but cannot be considered as an absolute right.

Goutam Kundu vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. (1993)

In this case, the Supreme Court of India, dealing with the paternity of a child, noticed Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, and it was noticed that the presumption arising under this Section can only be displaced by a strong preponderance of evidence and not merely by a balance of probability. It was subsequently held in this case that the Indian courts cannot order the blood test as a matter of course, and whenever an application is being made requesting the blood test, such an application must not be entertained. It was further observed that it is the duty of the court to examine the fact that what would be the consequences in case such an order is granted, whether it will affect the branding of a child as a bastard or the imputation of unchaste on the mother? Finally, this case established that no one can be compelled to give a blood sample for analysis.

P.A. Anbu Anandan vs. D. Sivakumari (1998)

In this case, the question before the Madras High Court was whether there had been a consummation of marriage or not. After the analysis of various facts and other issues related to the case, it was observed by the court that no person can be compulsorily compelled to undergo a medical examination against his/her wishes.

Mr. X vs. Hospital Z (1998)

In this case, there was a conflict between the fundamental rights of two individuals. The court was tasked with determining which of two conflicting fundamental rights would prevail. The court in this case ruled that the right that advances public morality would prevail.

Smt. Ningamma and Another vs. Chikkaiah and Another (1999)

In this case, it was ruled by the Karnataka High Court that the right to personal liberty is a very important right for an individual. If a person is compelled to undergo a medical examination without the consent of that individual, then that amounts to an infringement of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court further clarifies that in the absence of any express provision either under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Indian Evidence Act or any other law that authorises the court to compel a person to give medical evidence or any such blood test that may raise apprehension regarding the chastity of women, such an order amounts to an infringement of the fundamental right.

M. Vijaya vs. The Chairman, Singareni Collieries and Ors. (2001)

In this case, the Andhra High Court discussed the balance between the right to privacy of an individual and the need to protect public health. The most important question before the court was, can a person be compelled to undergo a medical test if that person is suspected to be suffering from AIDS?

It was decided by the court that an individual does have the right to privacy, but at the same time, it is the duty of the government to improve and protect public health, as it is the government’s duty by virtue of Article 47 of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, the government needs to identify the people suffering from HIV so that it can be further prevented. As a result, it was ruled in this case that the action of the government requiring the individual suffering from HIV to undergo a medical examination is not violative of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion 

In this case, the Supreme Court of India concluded that the court can order the medical examination in cases of divorce as it can be crucial in determining some of the factors, such as soundness of mind, mental state, etc., which can be a valid ground for divorce. The court took into consideration the “right to privacy” and it was observed that although the right to privacy is one of the vital rights, at the same time, such a right cannot be deemed to be an absolute right and certain limitations can be imposed in the interest of the party. The need to ascertain the truth behind the divorce is a more important factor as it might affect the rights of the parties throughout their life and hence it can act as a limitation to the right to privacy.

This decision of the Apex Court balanced the right to privacy with the urgency regarding matrimonial disputes. It was inferred by the court that a medical examination can be ordered in instances where there is a strong prima facie case, and if the person refuses to undergo the medical examination, then an adverse inference may be drawn based on the specific situation of the case. Therefore, it can be concluded from the entire analysis that the court has the power to order medical examinations in matrimonial cases to ensure just and fair decisions, which can be necessary to determine the truthfulness of the legal process.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

On which provision does the Supreme Court rely to justify the order for medical examination in matrimonial cases?

The Supreme Court of India relied on Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which gives inherent power to courts under civil proceedings to make any order that is necessary for doing justice and for ascertaining truth in the legal process, along with filling the existing gap in the subsisting legal provisions.

What could be the implications if any person refuses to undergo the medical examination?

In the present case, it was ruled by the Apex Court that if any person refuses to undergo the medical examination, then the court can draw adverse inferences under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882, on the basis of such refusal, which can eventually affect the outcome of the case.

What is the significance of this ruling for future matrimonial cases?

This case clarifies one of the major issues, and it was held that the matrimonial court has the authority to order medical examinations to ascertain the truthfulness of the case. Therefore, in future matrimonial cases, the court can order a medical examination based on the judgement given in Sharda vs. Dharampal. However, it was advised by the court that such medical examinations can only be ordered if there is a strong prima facie case.

How does this case draw a balance between the right to privacy and justice in divorce cases?

The decision of the Apex Court in the present case shows that the right to privacy is an essential right of the individual, but it can be limited to ensure truthfulness in matrimonial cases. The court said that medical examination might affect the rights of an individual, but the most important thing is to ensure the truthfulness of the case, and such an order can only be passed when there is a strong prima facie case and not otherwise. This reasoning of the court in the present case helped to balance privacy and justice in matrimonial cases.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here