Dimpal Nikhilkumar Sanklecha vs Nikhilkumar Nandakumar Sanklecha

2026:BHC-AUG:15923
(1) wp-12217-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12217 OF 2025
Dimpal W/o Nikhilkumar Sanklecha,
Age: 37 Years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. Sakri, Pratik Provision,
Bajarpeth, Sakri Nagarpalika Shopping Center,
In front of Bank of Baroda,
Tal- Sakri, Dist. Dhule. ..Petitioner
(Original Respondent)
Versus
Nikhilkumar s/o Nandakumar Sanklecha,
Age: 33 Years, Occu- Business,
R/o- Arihant Traders, Market,
Nardana, Tal. Shindekheda, Dist. Dhule. ..Respondent
(Original Petitioner)
…
Ms. Rutuja L. Jakhande, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
th
DATED : 15 APRIL, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated
02.08.2025 passed below Exhibit-16 by learned Civil Judge Senior
Division, Dhule in HMP No.314/2024, whereby application filed by
respondent for examination of petitioner through expert
psychiatrist has been allowed.
3. The respondent instituted proceeding under Section 13 (1)
(ia)(ib) and (iii) (a) & (b) of Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of

(2) wp-12217-2025.odt

divorce on ground that petitioner-wife is incurably of unsound
mind or suffering from mental disorder. The petitioner filed
written statement and denied averment in petition and took plea
that she is mentally sound and not suffering from any mental
illness or disorder in terms of sub-clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. Eventually, respondent filed
application below Exhibit-16 seeking direction to refer petitioner
for medical examination to find out her mental and physical status,
particularly in light of pleading in petition. The Trial Court after
considering rival submissions, allowed application and directed
petitioner to remain present for medical examination before expert
psychiatrist in Civil Hospital, Dhule and call confidential report of
examination.
4. Ms. Rutuja Jakhande, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that Trial Court has mechanically passed order
for medical examination of petitioner through expert psychiatrist.
There is no material to prima facie indicate that petitioner ever
suffered psychological disorder or unsoundness of mind. Except for
bare assertions of petitioner, there is nothing on record to indicate
that expert opinion is necessary as to her psychological or mental
condition. In support of her contentions she relies upon
observations of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in case of Sri.

(3) wp-12217-2025.odt

Jaganath A. S. Vs. Smt. Madhushree D. S. ( Writ Petition
No.26295/2023 decided on 12.03.2024 ).
5. Per contra, Mr. Tungar, learned Advocate appearing for
respondent submits that Court is empowered to call for report of
medical examination to satisfy as to existence of grounds as
contemplated under Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act. The
respondent-husband took specific plea in petition about physical
and mental condition of petitioner-wife. To bring truth on record,
medical examination is necessary. In support of his contentions he
relies upon observations of this Court in case of Sushma w/o
1
Umesh Kanpathak Vs. Umesh s/o Vijayrao Kanpathak and
2
observations of Supreme Court in case of Sharda Vs. Dharmpal .
6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of
material placed into service, it can be observed that respondent-
husband took plea that petitioner’s behaviour was abnormal. She
was never ready for physical relationship after marriage. She was
secretly under medication. Her parents also suppressed her
mental illness. The aforesaid allegations are denied by petitioner-
wife. The impugned order depicts that learned Judge simply
observed that in light of provisions under Order XXXII Rule 15 of
Code of Civil Procedure, Court can get aid of medical expert to
1 2018(1) Mh.L.J. 51.
2 2003 (3) SCR 105.

(4) wp-12217-2025.odt

determine if person is of unsound mind or not. Therefore, medical
report is necessary to assist Court to draw conclusion about mental
condition of opponent. In case of Sharda Vs. Dharmpal (supra)
an issue was referred for consideration before Supreme Court as to
“whether party to divorce proceeding can be compelled to medical
examination.” In concluding paragraph no.85, Supreme Court held
that “matrimonial Court has power to order person to undergo
medical test and passing of such order by Court would not be in
violation of right to personal liberty under Article 21 of Constitution
of India.” It is further observed that “ Court should exercise such
power, if applicant has strong prima facie case and there is
sufficient material before Court. If despite order of Court,
respondent refuses to submit himself or herself for medical
examination, Court will be entitled to draw adverse inference
against him/her.”
7. In light of aforesaid observations, it cannot be disputed that
matrimonial Court possesses sufficient powers to direct medical
examination in case decree for divorce under Section 13(1)(iii) of
Hindu Marriage Act is sought. In such cases, it is burden of
petitioner to establish that unsoundness of mind of respondent is
incurable, or that mental disorder is of such a kind and to such an
extent that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with
his or her spouse. The medical evidence for arriving at such

(5) wp-12217-2025.odt

finding would be of considerable assistance. However, that does
not mean that Court shall casually pass order directing medical
examination without satisfying itself as to existence of ground on
basis of evidence tendered into service. If such an order is casually
passed without there being prima facie material indicating
existence of ground for reference to medical examination, it would
be an abuse of discretionary power at the hands of Court.
8. The impugned order nowhere suggests that Court has
applied its mind to pleadings and material on record, or has
satisfied itself as to existence of grounds for referring petitioner for
medical examination. In such case, it is expected that petitioner
shall prima facie establish, by leading evidence, that there is
material to hold that medical examination of respondent–spouse is
necessary to determine whether he/she suffers from requisite
degree of unsoundness of mind or whether same is incurable. The
impugned order is bereft of sufficient reasons. In that view of
matter, impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
9. In result, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause
(B).
10. Needless to state here that, respondent shall be at liberty to
reiterate his prayer for medical examination of petitioner after
leading necessary evidence to establish prima facie case for such

(6) wp-12217-2025.odt

reference. In case respondent files fresh application and puts on
record necessary material, Trial Court shall be at liberty to
reconsider such prayer and pass well reasoned order either
accepting or rejecting prayer for reference.
11. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/April-2026