SHIV KUMAR GUPTA Vs. PRATIBHA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dtd. 15/12/2020 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No.40- A/2017 by IV Additional District Judge, Rewa, whereby the application under Ss. 65 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondent to medically examine the uterus of the respondent from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Rewa and also to call for the Sonography report, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner has filed an application under Sec. 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act for holding marriage null and void on the ground that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she is not able to deliver a child. Earlier, the petitioner had moved an application under Ss. 65 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act. The aforesaid application came to be decided on 18/7/2016. The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that medical evidence has already been recorded in the matter and therefore, re-examination has no meaning. Being aggrieved by the order dtd. 18/7/2016, the petitioner filed writ petition No.10076/2017, which came to be dismissed vide order dtd. 9/10/2017. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application under Ss. 65 and 67 of the Indian Evidence Act seeking medical examination on the ground that the respondent was medically examined by on Dr. Kalpana Yadav and Sonography was carried out by Dr. Ashutosh Agrawal, who in their reports have stated that the respondent has no uterus. In the circumstances, the respondent may be directed to examine herself from Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Rewa. The said application was dismissed vide order dtd. 15/12/2020, which is subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court erred in rejecting the application and did not consider the fact that Dr. Kalpana Yadav and Ashutosh Agrawal had examined the respondent medically and found that there is no uterus in her body, therefore, the application ought to have been allowed.