- (1.) THE challenge in this revision petition preferred by petitioner (husband) son of Jaibir Singh, is to the impugned order dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P -4), by virtue of which the trial Court has dismissed his application (Annexure P -2) for medical examination, to ascertain the mental ability of respondent (wife) in a divorce petition, filed by him under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").
(2.) AS is evident from the record that, the petitioner (husband) has filed a divorce petition (Annexure P -1), against the respondent (wife), for dissolution of their marriage on the ground of cruelty etc. The respondent (wife) refuted the claim, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in the petition and prayed for its dismissal.
(3.) AS per divorce petition (Annexure P -1), the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 28.05.2005, according to Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. After the solemnization of the marriage, they resided together, cohabited as husband and wife and one male child, namely, Ravinder was borne out of their said wedlock, who is now aged about five years. Whereas the petitioner has filed the instant divorce petition on 03.09.2011 i.e. after a period of six years of solemnization of the marriage. Earlier the petitioner (husband) has never complained about the mental health of respondent (wife) during her stay in the matrimonial home and consummated the marriage. Not only that, she gave birth to a male child. That being the position on record, now it cannot possibly be saith that she was mentally ill and the husband is entitled to decree of divorce on that account, as contrary urged on his behalf. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that such personal medical examination to ascertain the mental health of a person cannot be permitted in a routine and causal manner where her honour is involved, unless and until it is expedient and very much essential to do so. Therefore, petitioner appears to have filed the present petition for medical examination of respondent (wife), in order to prolong her agony and the trial Court has rightly negated his plea of medical examination, vide impugned order dated 03.02.2014 (Annexure P -4), which in substance is as under: - "Undeniably, marriage of the parties witnessed birth of a male child, who is presently living with respondent -wife. Petitioner in his deposition made before this court as well as his two witnesses namely Rameshwar (PW2) and Mahipal (PW3) have failed to depose that respondent was ever treated for mental disorder or mental retardation during the period of her stay with petitioner at her matrimonial home. It is equally intriguing that on behalf of petitioner, a suggestion when put to all the witnesses of respondent including respondent of her having received medical treatment for alleged mental disorder in the past was disputed and denied with vehemence. In Sharda's case as relied upon on behalf of petitioner, medical examination of wife on the application of husband was only allowed on the premises of putting up a prima -facie case in this regard by the petitioner -husband. Need not to mention that except bald pleadings coupled with oral testimony, nothing in the form of medical evidence could be produced on record to work as a prima -facie to enable this court to allow the present application for medico -legal examination of respondent -wife in order to assess her mental faculty. 9. Contention of learned counsel for respondent while contending previous absence on the part of petitioner -husband to have availed appropriate remedy in seeking annulment of marriage within one year of the marriage regarding alleged unsound mind or mental disorder of respondent -wife appears to be reasonable as now after solemnization of marriage on 28.5.1997, grievance of petitioner -husband could see the light of the day only on 2.9.2011, when instant application could be brought and further more without commenting on the various alleged acts and conduct while defining mental state of respondent -wife in the petition as well as in the adduced oral evidence on behalf of petitioner, a prudent man find himself unable to reach at a conclusion of petitioner's having remained successful to establish a prima -facie case as so held to be required in Sharda's case to favour him in holding out direction for medico -legal examination of respondent -wife. In law, a court cannot assist party to create evidence for it when otherwise the same can be forthcoming on record on behalf of the party interested in leading the same before the court." Meaning thereby, the trial Court has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of superintendence jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.;