Wife can't be forced into narco test: HC rejects plea seeking tests to rebut allegation

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has turned down a request from a man seeking to conduct narco-analysis, polygraph, and DNA tests on himself and his wife in connection with a pending divorce case. The husband had sought these tests to challenge his wife’s allegations, which included claims of desertion, cruelty, and sexual incapability. However, the court ruled that the application was submitted too late and was unnecessary for resolving the dispute.

Justice Sanjeet Purohit, acting as a Vacation Judge, upheld the decision of the family court, which had previously rejected the husband's application. This application was made under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court emphasized that the husband's request came after both parties had completed presenting their evidence and the matter was set for final arguments. The husband had not previously introduced any medical evidence to counter his wife's claims about his sexual capability.

The wife had initiated the divorce proceedings under Section 13(1)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing desertion, cruelty, and allegations of her husband being sexually incapable and impotent. During the course of the legal process, the husband attempted to introduce new evidence by requesting the court to mandate both parties to undergo a series of tests. He proposed that he would cover the entire cost of these examinations, aiming to refute his wife's allegations.

However, the wife contested this move, asserting that the evidence phase had concluded and that the husband had not presented any prior medical documentation to counter her claims. Additionally, she argued that she should not be compelled to participate in these tests against her will. The family court concurred with her stance and denied the husband's application. Subsequently, the husband appealed this decision to the high court.

The high court found no issues with the family court's ruling and dismissed the husband's writ petition. It pointed out that the husband's application arrived after the evidence submission period had ended and that he had not attempted to provide any medical evidence earlier to address the allegations of impotency during his own testimony. The court remarked that the power granted under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not meant to be utilized routinely or simply upon request.

Citing the precedent established in the case of Gayathri v. M. Girish, (2016) 14 SCC 142, the high court echoed the Supreme Court's disapproval of last-minute applications aimed at addressing evidentiary gaps. It stated that requests for adjournments, reopening, and recalling are interim measures that should be avoided unless there are compelling and acceptable reasons for doing so.

Furthermore, the high court deemed the husband's request for a joint medical examination of both spouses as entirely misguided and legally unsound, noting that the wife could not be forced to undergo such tests without her consent. It also determined that the husband had not demonstrated the relevance of narco-analysis, polygraph, or DNA testing to the specific allegation of sexual incapacity.

The court affirmed the family court's conclusion that the responsibility of proving the impotency claim rested with the wife, who had raised it. It stressed that courts cannot be tasked with gathering evidence on behalf of a litigant or filling in gaps that a party is responsible for addressing themselves. The high court clarified that its supervisory authority under Article 227 of the Constitution is constrained and cannot be employed to reassess evidence merely because an alternative perspective exists. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the family court's order and dismissed the writ petition alongside all pending applications.