The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a husband’s plea seeking narco-analysis, polygraph and DNA tests in a divorce dispute. Justice Sanjeet Purohit upheld the family court order, ruling that such tests were unnecessary, delayed, and could not be imposed without consent.
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a husband’s petition seeking narco-analysis, polygraph and DNA tests on himself and his wife in a pending divorce dispute. The court ruled that the request was made at a much later stage of the proceedings and was neither necessary nor relevant for deciding the matrimonial dispute.
Justice Sanjeet Purohit, while hearing the matter as Vacation Judge, upheld the order of the family court, which had earlier rejected the husband’s application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The case originated after the wife filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She sought dissolution of marriage on grounds including desertion, cruelty, and allegations that her husband was sexually incapable and impotent.
During the pendency of the case, both parties completed their evidence, and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments. At that point, the husband approached the family court seeking directions for both spouses to undergo a joint narco-analysis test, polygraph test, medical examination, and DNA test.
The husband argued that these examinations would help disprove the allegations made against him and stated that he was willing to bear the entire cost of the tests.
The wife strongly opposed the application, stating that the husband’s request came after the evidence stage had already concluded. She argued that he had failed to submit any medical evidence earlier when he had the opportunity to respond to the allegations during his own evidence. She further contended that she could not be compelled to undergo such intrusive examinations without her consent.
Agreeing with the wife’s objections, the family court rejected the husband’s plea. The husband then challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court.
High Court’s Observation
The High Court found no legal error in the family court’s decision and dismissed the husband’s petition. The court observed that the application was filed only after both sides had completed evidence and the matter was ready for final hearing. It noted that the husband did not attempt to produce medical material earlier to counter the allegations regarding sexual incapacity.
The court stated:
“The power under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking,”
The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gayathri v. M. Girish, (2016) 14 SCC 142, where the apex court had discouraged last-minute attempts to reopen proceedings or fill gaps in evidence.
The court observed:
“Applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered.”
The High Court held that the husband’s request for a joint medical examination was “wholly misconceived and legally untenable,” as a person cannot be compelled to undergo such tests without consent.
The court further observed that the husband failed to establish how narco-analysis, polygraph or DNA testing would have any direct connection with the allegation of sexual incapacity raised in the divorce proceedings.
It also agreed with the family court’s view that the responsibility of proving the allegation of impotency rested on the party who made the claim. Courts cannot be used as a means to collect evidence for a party or compensate for evidence that should have been presented earlier.
While examining the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court noted that its supervisory jurisdiction is limited and cannot be exercised merely because another interpretation of facts may be possible.
Finding no illegality or procedural irregularity in the family court’s order, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the husband’s petition along with all pending applications.
The ruling highlights that courts are cautious about allowing late-stage applications aimed at introducing fresh evidence, especially when they involve compulsory medical or scientific examinations affecting personal privacy and consent.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE