APHC010405102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1984 OF 2025 Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dated 19.06.2025 passed in I.A. No. 156 of 2023 in H.M.O.P No.5 of 2020 pending on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. Between; Kumbam Swamulu @ Swamulu Goud, S/o.Late Ramudu Goud, aged about 38 years, R/o.H.No.3-31, Sathnakota Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Nandyal District - 518 401. ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner AND Jagathi Krishna Kumari, D/o.Jagathi Venkatarama Krishna Goud, aged about 35 years, R/o.H.No.22/15, Kotha Street, Nandyal Town, Nandyal District - 518 501. ...Respondent/Respondent/Respondent A lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in H.M.O.P No.5 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Varun Byreddy Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) fifteenth day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi rivii Revision Petition No.1984 of 2025 APHC010405102025 [3311] Monday, the Between: Kumbam Swamulu @ Swamulu Goud and Jagathi Krishna Kumari Counsel for the petitioner: I.Varun Byreddy Counsel for the respondent: None The Court made the following: ...Petitioner ...Respondent / 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 % ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 19.06.2025, dismissing I.A.No.156 of 2023 in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District filed by the petitioner under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to direct the respondent before the Government Mental Health Care, Erragadda main to appear road, Erragadda, Hyderabad, Telangana state - 500 038 and direct the Government Mental Health Care, Erragadda main road for examining respondent to ascertain whether the respondent is a schizophrenia reference No.(old A/O.No.229590) and fix the date, time of the patient with visiting to hospital to conduct required medical test and to submit the medical records before the Court or to pass any such order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the interests of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts, in brief, are as follows: 2. The revision petitioner is the petitioner and the respondent is the the Court. The petitioner in the interlocutory respondent before application filed the main petition seeking divorce from the respondent ground that the respondent has been suffering from not even consummated mainly on the schizophrenia owing to which the marriage was The divorce petition is and that there were disputes since then, contested by the respondent. At the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.156 of 2023. The petition was opposed by the respondent counter stating that without having any proof of the allegations filed intentionally to harass the by filing the main petition, this petition was respondent. It is further stated that the consent of the respondent is in I BSB,J C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 direction sought in the petition as it involves legal required to issue any right of the respondent under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is also contended that the provision of law under which the petition is filed is not proper. 3. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition only on the ground that the relief sought is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, no appearance has been made. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Supreme Court in Sharda Vs. Dharmpal' held that a matrimonial Court has wife to undergo medical examination for 6. jurisdiction to direct a unsoundness of mind and such a direction does not violate Article 21 of of India and thus, the order of the trial Court is the Constitution apparently illegal and unsustainable. He further submitted that this High Court, in several cases prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharda (1 supra) and subsequent thereto, directed medical examination of a party in matrimonial proceedings and cited the following decisions;- In Padala Kaniki Reddy Vs. Padala SridevP, it was held at paragraphs No. 12 and 13 as follows; “12. In three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Sharda v. Dharmpal [[2003] 3 SCR106], Justice S. B. Sinha speaking for the Court while summing up (i) ^ AIR 2003 SC 3450 ' 2006 (5) ALT 762 I I 4 BSBJ C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 \ observed at Para 81 as hereunder: To sum up, our conclusions are: 1. A matrimonial Court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test. 2. Passing of such an order by the Court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 3. However, the Court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court. If despite the order of the Court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the Court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him. 13. The Apex Court, in fact, had made an elaborate survey of all the facets in the light of the decisions governing the question both in England and in this country. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred to supra, now the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the relief prayed for by the husband to be granted or to be negatived. The facts already had been narrated supra. In the light of the specific stand taken by the husband inasmuch as the adduction of oral evidence may not be of much help to establish the stand taken by the husband, it would be just and proper to direct the wife to submit to the medical examination for the purposes prayed for in the application. As already referred to supra, it is true that the wife had prayed the Court by filing O.P. for dissolution of marriage on certain grounds. However, for reasons best % I I 5 BSBJ C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 \ known, the wife had not chosen to file any application of this nature, but the husband had chosen to do so. Hence, taking the overall facts and circumstances and in the light of the peculiar facts, the wife is directed to undergo medical examination as prayed for in the application. The learned Judge dismissed the application on unsustainable grounds. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside.” (ii) In P.Ugalakshmi Devi Vs. P.Murali Krishna^ this Court by following the decision of the apex Court in Sharda (1 supra), held that a matrimonial Court has power to order a person to undergo medical test and that it cannot be contended that the relief cannot be granted merely because the marriage was denied. It was further held in the cited decision (3 supra) that though the petitioner has approached seeking the relief at a belated stage, that alone cannot be a ground to reject the relief which can be otherwise granted. Aggrieved against the order of this Court passed in P.Ugalakshmi Devi (3 supra), the matter carried to the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.25961 of 2023 and the said S.L.P was dismissed. The review petition C.No.630 of 2024 in Special Leave to Appeal C.No.25961 of 2023 was also dismissed, (iii) G.Venkatanarayana Vs. Karupati Laxmi Devl^. In this decision, it was held at paragraph No.7 as follows; was “7. The examination of mental or bodily state is not excluded by S. 14 of the Evidence Act. The exposure to medical examination aided by scientific data cannot be ^ 2023 (6) ALT 48 "AIR 1985 AP 1 f / ■ .'f 6 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 % construed as deprivation of personal liberty and breach of Art. 21 of the Constitution.” As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the observation of the trial Court to dismiss the petition is obviously incorrect. No other merit has been examined by the trial Court. A perusal of the petition clearly indicates that there is a specific allegation of schizophrenia allegedly suffered by the respondent and being treated for the same with patient number mentioned in the petition. But, the respondent has not specifically denied with reference to the patient number. The only resistance raised in the petition is that her right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would be violated and that the 7. petition is belated as it was filed at the stage of arguments. Of course, similar allegation was made by the petitioner in the main petition and the same was denied by the respondent by filing counter in the main petition. But, as a mere allegation is not sufficient for the petitioner to establish the main ground seeking divorce, besides other allegations of It is for him to Therefore, it is desertion or non-consummation of the marriage. establish the allegation against the respondent, necessary to permit the petitioner to get the test conducted for the respondent. Since there is delay in seeking the relief, some terms can be imposed on the petitioner while allowing the relief. In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 19.06.2025, passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, in I.A.No.156 of 2023 in H.M.O.P.No.5 of 2020. Consequently, I.A.No.156 of 2023 is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay the respondent Rs.2,000/- within fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 8. / 7 BSBJ C.R.P.No.1984 of 2025 V failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without any further order. Further, the trial Court shall give suitable directions to the respondent as well as the hospital authorities for getting the necessary tests done to the respondent. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri Varun Byreddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BSV sree I / HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1984 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION