Madhya Pradesh HC Refuses Medical Examination of Wife, Holds Virginity Test a Grave Invasion of Privacy

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with an order of the Family Court rejecting a husband’s plea seeking medical examination of his wife to ascertain her sexual history, holding that such a request would amount to a virginity test and result in a grave invasion of privacy and dignity. The Court underscored that refusal to engage in sexual relations, by itself, is not a statutory ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Justice Vivek Jain, while dismissing the petition filed by the husband, observed that the prayer for medical examination was neither relevant nor essential for adjudicating the matrimonial dispute and would subject the woman to humiliation under the guise of evidence collection. 

"This Court does not find any substance in the plea made by the petitioner/husband to subject the respondent/wife to medical examination as the said examination would be nothing but a virginity test which would be an invasion of privacy of the individual and is not relevant for the purpose of divorce as refusal to enter into sexual intercourse in itself is not a ground of divorce and the petitioner can adduce other evidence to prove disinclination of the wife to enter into sexual relations, as alleged in the divorce petition and virginity test or “two-finger test” of the wife would neither be relevant nor be conclusive for the purposes of the divorce petition. It would be nothing but invasion of privacy", Court held.

The petition arose from a divorce proceeding instituted by the husband on the ground of cruelty, wherein he alleged that the respondent-wife had refused to enter into physical relations.

The wife, in her written statement before the Family Court, denied the allegations and instead claimed that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, dowry harassment, and acts of sodomy by the petitioner. She also denied any allegation of mental infirmity. On this basis, the husband sought a medical examination of the wife to determine whether she had ever engaged in sexual relations or had been subjected to anal intercourse.

The Family Court rejected the application, prompting the husband to approach the High Court. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Mohd. Aadil Usmani placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sharda v. Dharmpal to argue that in matrimonial disputes, the right to privacy cannot be used as a shield where medical examination is necessary to establish grounds for divorce.

The High Court, however, distinguished the reliance placed on Sharda, noting that medical examination can be directed only where it is indispensable for establishing a legally recognised ground of divorce, such as impotence or mental disorder. In the present case, Justice Jain noted that refusal to enter into sexual relations does not render a marriage void or voidable under Sections 11 or 12, nor does it independently constitute a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court further held that seeking a medical examination to determine whether the wife had ever engaged in sexual activity was, in substance, nothing but a virginity test. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, the Court reiterated that the practice of conducting virginity or two-finger tests has been categorically deprecated and declared unconstitutional, being violative of a woman’s right to dignity under Article 21.

Court also observed that medical science does not support the inference that sexual history can be conclusively determined through such examinations, as the condition of the hymen is neither determinative nor reliable. The Court cautioned that ordering such tests, particularly long after the alleged acts, would have no evidentiary value and would only result in psychological trauma and public humiliation.

Referring to the Delhi High Court’s decision in SR Sephy v. CBI, the Court emphasized that virginity testing is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment rooted in gender bias and societal stereotypes, and cannot be permitted even against a woman accused in criminal proceedings, let alone in a matrimonial dispute.

Concluding that the petitioner could lead other evidence to prove cruelty, if any, the High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the requested medical examination would amount to an unjustified invasion of privacy and was wholly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the divorce proceedings

Case Title: Bhupendra Kushwaha v. Priyanshi Kushwaha

Order Date: 21.01.2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Jain