Andhra Pradesh High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the order dated 25-5-2022, which directed the respondent to undergo medical examination to assess his potency in respect of consummation of marriage, S. Bhanumathi, J.* opined that the Matrimonial Court had the power to order a person to undergo medical test and accordingly, directed the Trial Court to determine the hospital to which the respondent could be referred and subsequently, set aside the order passed by the Family Court, Kurnool.
In the instant case, the petitioner was a senior medical officer since 2010 and was also a medical officer since 2006 in the Government Unani Hospital, Kurnool. The respondent was a former MLA of Kodumur and presently was an active politician affiliated to a political party in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
The petitioner stated that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 20-04-2016, however, the marriage was not consummated because of the respondent's impotency. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent misbehaved with the petitioner by physically harassing her and besides already giving cash and gold ornaments in dowry, the respondent also demanded the petitioner to bring additional dowry.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition to annul the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and for the grant of Rs. 1 crore compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner also sought the direction for the return of dowry of Rs. 6,00,000 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment and further, grant of Rs. 1,00,000 towards marriage expenses and costs of the petition.
The Trial Court dismissed the petition and made observations regarding the proof of marriage and further stated that the matter was at the end of the stage of the proceedings. Thus, the petitioner filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before this Court.
The Court relied on Sharda v. Dharmpal, (2003) 4 SCC 493, wherein the Supreme Court held that “a Matrimonial Court had the power to order a person to undergo a medical test”. Thus, merely because the marriage was denied, it could not be contended that such an order could not be granted. The Court further opined that, even though the petitioner had sought relief at a later stage, that alone could not be a ground to reject the relief which otherwise could have been granted.
Thus, the Court opined that to decide the matter on merits by securing all the material evidence, the Trial Court ought to have allowed the petition, but it failed to exercise its jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Trial Court to determine the hospital to which the respondent could be referred and subsequently, set aside the order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool and allowed the present revision petition.
[P. Ugalakshmi Devi v. P. Murlai Krishna, Civil Revision Petition No. 1067 of 2022, order dated 21-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate;
For the Respondent: V. Surya Kiran Kumar, Advocate;