The Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court recently  ruled that while a  Family Court  has  the power to send a spouse for a medical examination to check for a mental disorder, it  cannot do so casually and must carefully apply its mind before passing such an order.

In view  of this, Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar set aside an order of a Family Court in Dhule, which had directed a woman to undergo examination by a psychiatrist.

Husband’s Claims:

The husband contended  that his wife suffered from an ‘incurable’ mental disorder, and that this fact was hidden by his in-laws. He claimed that his wife behaved abnormally, often refused to maintain physical relations with him after marriage, and was ‘secretly’ taking medication.

Family Court’s Error:

Justice Chapalgaonkar noted that the Family Court passed the impugned order by simply stating  that under Order XXXII Rule 15 of  the Code of Civil Procedure, the court can take help from  a medical expert to determine if a person is of unsound mind or not. 

Court’s Observation:

The Bench, while referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, observed that the Family Court has  sufficient powers to order a  medical examination when a  divorce is sought  under Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act. 

"The medical evidence for arriving at such finding would be of considerable assistance. However, that does not mean that Court shall casually pass order directing medical examination without satisfying itself as to existence of ground on basis of evidence tendered into service. If such an order is casually passed without there being prima facie material indicating existence of ground for reference to medical examination, it would be an abuse of discretionary power at the hands of Court," the judge held.

Lack of Reasoning:

The bench  observed that the Family Court did not suggest anywhere that it had applied its mind to the  pleadings and material on record or that it had  satisfied itself about the  existence of grounds to refer the  petitioner for a  medical examination. 

The Court noted, "In such case, it is expected that petitioner shall prima facie establish, by leading evidence, that there is material to hold that medical examination of respondent–spouse is necessary to determine whether he/she suffers from requisite degree of unsoundness of mind or whether same is incurable. The impugned order is bereft of sufficient reasons. In that view of matter, impugned order cannot be sustained in law,"

Final Order:

On the basis of these  observations, the Court quashed the impugned order. However, it gave liberty to the husband in this case to approach the Family Court again with his original plea, and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter and pass a proper reasoned order after applying its mind.

Case Details: DNS vs NNS (Writ Petition 12217 of 2025)