Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Lalit Kishore vs Meeru Sharma & Anr

Supreme Court4 August 2009R.M.Lodha · Tarun Chatterjee

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A Family Court has inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to pass an order directing a party to submit to medical examination in a matrimonial proceeding, even though the Hindu Marriage Act or other governing law contains no express provision empowering such direction, where such examination would assist the court in determining whether a party suffers from mental illness relevant to the grounds of the matrimonial proceeding, as the court's primary duty is to ensure that truth comes out and it possesses complete inherent power to pass all orders necessary to do complete justice between the parties.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1
NON REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5077 OF 2009(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.680 of 2009)

Lalit Kishore ----Appellant

Versus

Meeru Sharma & Anr. ----Respondents

JUDGMENT

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal filed against the judgment and

order dated 2nd of December, 2008 in W.P.No.10290

of 2007 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at

Jabalpur by which the application filed by the

husband-appellant for medical examination of his

wife-respondent for ascertaining her mental

condition was rejected by the Family Court at

Jabalpur, which was affirmed by the High Court in

W.P.No.10290 of 2007.

2

3. In our view, the High Court as well as the Family

Court was not justified in rejecting the application

for medical examination of the wife-respondent. It

is difficult to conceive that the Family Court cannot

be conferred with jurisdiction to pass an order for

medical examination in an appropriate case because

when such report is received, that would facilitate

the court in giving a positive conclusion on the

mental condition of the wife-respondent. It is true

that the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law

governing the field does not contain any express

provision empowering the court to issue direction

upon a party in a matrimonial proceeding to compel

him to submit herself/himself to a medical

examination. But, in our view, it does not preclude

the court from passing such an order. The court is

always empowered to satisfy itself as to whether a

party before it suffers from mental illness or not

either for the purpose of taking evidence on the

ground for which the matrimonial proceeding was

started. It is well settled that the primary duty of 3

the court is to see that the truth comes out.

Therefore, although the medical examination for a

party is not provided in the Act, even then, the court

has complete inherent power in an appropriate case

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to

pass all orders for doing complete justice to the

parties to the suit. In Sharda vs. Dharmpal [(2003)

4 SCC 493], a three-Judge Bench decision of this

Court has taken into consideration the power of the

court to allow such application for medical

examination of a party in a matrimonial proceeding

and observed as under :-

"In certain cases medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties. It may being the parties to terms."

4. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court and

considering the fact that the report of the medical

expert would only be an evidence in the proceeding,

we do not find any reason why such application for 4

appointment of a medical expert to examine the

wife-respondent cannot be granted.

5. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order as

well as the order of the Family Court are set aside.

The application for appointment of a medical expert

for medical examination of the wife-respondent filed

at the instance of the husband-appellant is thus

allowed.

6. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order

as to costs.

...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ...........................J. August 04, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free