HC quashes Dhule court’s order referring woman to psychiatric test; cites absence of judicial reasoning

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Bombay high court's Aurangabad bench has quashed and set aside a Dhule civil court's order that directed a woman to undergo psychiatric examination in a divorce proceeding pending before it.The bench of justice Santosh Chapalgoankar said, "Courts cannot casually pass such orders" to ascertain the mental health of an individual. The HC ruled that such orders must be backed by proper judicial reasoning and evidence.The bench said although the family courts were empowered to seek medical examination of a spouse in matrimonial disputes, such powers must be exercised with caution and only after establishing a prima facie case.The HC was hearing a petition by a 37-year-old woman from Dhule against the civil judge (senior division), Dhule's impugned (under challenge) order passed on Aug 2, 2025, in a divorce petition filed by her husband under the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband has alleged that his wife was "incurably of unsound mind" and suffering from a mental disorder of such a nature that it was impossible for him to continue marital life. He claimed that her behaviour was abnormal, that she avoided physical intimacy after marriage, and her family had suppressed her alleged mental health condition prior to their marriage. The wife had strongly contested all these claims, denying them.The civil court had allowed the husband's plea and directed the wife to appear before a psychiatrist at Civil Hospital, Dhule, for a confidential medical report. The wife then moved the HC through her lawyer Rutuja Jakhande. The HC held that the court's authority to direct medical examinations, including psychiatric tests, in appropriate case are "not absolute" and must be exercised with due caution, particularly when they impact an individual's privacy and dignity. The HC noted that the trial court had "mechanically passed" the order without adequately examining the pleadings or evidence on record. It observed that except for bare assertions made by the husband, there was no material to prima facie indicate that the woman was suffering from any psychological disorder warranting such an examination.The bench said that passing orders for medical examination without sufficient grounds would amount to an abuse of discretionary power. It further found that the trial court's order was "bereft of sufficient reasons" and failed to demonstrate proper application of mind. The burden lies on the spouse seeking medical examination to first establish, through evidence, a strong prima facie case of mental disorder of the degree required under law.