Sangeeta v. Shirt Girish Kumar

(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? (2) To be referred to the reporter or not? (3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest

JUDGMENT

ARUNA SUIRESH, J. (Oral)

1. Under challenge is the order of the trial court dated 27.02.2009 whereby the trial court allowed the application filed by the Respondent husband, seeking medical examination of the Petitioner by a Medical Board of a Govt. Hospital. Review petition filed by the petitioner was also CM(M) No.737/2009 2009:DHC:8540 dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 03.06.2009. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner is suffering from Manic Depressive Psychosis and has been under treatment of various doctors and hospital.

2. Petitioner submits that she is not suffering from any such disease. She is highly educated. She has done her graduation in Commerce from Delhi University and her M.A. (Economics) from Rohtak University. Not only this, she completed her diploma course in E. Commerce Solution Studies from Tata Infotech and therefore, according to the Petitioner, the trial court could not have passed the impugned order referring the Petitioner for her medical examination by a Board, to be constituted by C.M.O. Lady Harding Medical College to report if Petitioner was suffering from any mental disorder.

3. Respondent has filed a petition seeking divorce against the Petitioner and one of the pleas raised in the petition is the mental disorder of which the Petitioner is alleged to be suffering from.

4. Respondent has placed on record some documents indicating that Petitioner is suffering from Manic Depressive Psychosis. These records pertain to Lady Harding Medical College besides the report of Dr. Gaurav Gupta who had advised hospitalization of the Petitioner for medical examination.

5. As per the observations of the court, these documents also indicate that Petitioner was under treatment and was on medicines. c 6. True that, medical examination of a party is not provided in the Act, it cannot be disputed that Court has inherent jurisdiction to pass orders including the medical examination of a party for doing complete justice to the parties to the suit. In 'Sizarda vs. Dharampal, (2003) 4 5CC 493', the Supreme Court was pleased to observe:- "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." c[1]

7. The Court, therefore, is empowered to allow such application for medical examination of a party in matrimonial proceedings for the purpose of doing complete justice to the parties to the matrimonial proceedings and to ascertain whether a party to the petition suffers from mental illness or not.

8. Hence, under these circumstances, I find no merits in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed.

ARUNA SURESH (JUDGE) DECEMBER 17, 2009 vk