Dismissed

Jigendra Singh v. Renu Prajapati

Allahabad HC14 Feb 2019A227/9611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Article 227 writ petition challenged a family court order rejecting a request for a specialist medical examination of the respondent-wife for infertility. The court held the rejection was unjustified only in the absence of post-marital diagnosis evidence.

What did the court decide?

No experts were summoned. Mediation plea by the court was made for the trial court to examine merits on the divorce suit.

Jigendra Singh Vs Renu Prajapati — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9611 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Jigendra Singh Respondent :- Renu Prajapati Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeshwar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The present petition is directed against the orders dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Additional Family Judge, (F.T.C.) Jalaun at Orai whereby the application 27-Ga moved by the petitioner for medical examination of the opposite party from a specialist Doctor, has been rejected.

¶7

Only ground to assert the plea for seeking medical report regarding infertility of the respondent-wife is that she had been operated for removal of "Endometrioisis" prior to marriage. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that sufficient evidence had been brought on record that the respondent-wife was operated in the month of August, 2014 in Max Hospital, Padpadganj, Delhi for removal of "Endometrioisis". As a result of the said operation, she had been suffering from infertility.

¶8

The trial court has further recorded that apart from the above surgery, no other material evidence has been brought on record by the petitioner so as to establish that at any point of time, after marriage, the opposite party wife was examined by a Gynecologist and was diagnosed being suffering from infertility. No record of treatment of the wife has been brought on record by the petitioner. As a result of it, there was no occasion for the trial court to ask for the Doctor's report. The report of Doctor, if any, called would be a piece of evidence to be brought by the petitioner/plaintiff on record.

¶9

These observations made by the trial court could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Only submission is that in view of the admitted fact in the written statement of the wife having been diagnosed with "Endometrioisis", the petitioner has cogent reasons to believe that she is infertile.

¶10

These submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are found misconceived, inasmuch as, the question as to whether the wife cannot bear the child could only be established by the petitioner by bringing evidence that she was diagnosed as such after marriage and prior to filing of the petition under Article 12 (1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of infertility of wife.

¶11

Further, the petitioner has not been able to bring evidence before the trial court to substantiate that his wife is unable to conceive and bear the child. There was no occasion to summon an expert report in absence of cogent evidence.

¶12

No infirmity, therefore, can be attached to the decision of the

¶13

Principle Judge, Family Court.

¶14

However, as to the merits of the claim of the petitioner based on the medical report of wife having been diagnosed with "Endometrioisis", it is open for the Principle Judge, Family Court to examine the same, in accordance with law. Any observation made by this Court hereinabove would not come in the way of the petitioner in pleading his case before the Principle Judge, Family Court, on merits of the divorce suit.

¶15

The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 14.2.2019 Jyotsana

Jigendra Singh v. Renu Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jigendra Singh v. Renu Prajapati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asif Ali Vs Abdul Mannan and 2 Others

Praveen Kumar Singh Vs Dr. Gambhir Singh

Nasir Husain and 6 Others Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dr. Anand Prakash Rai and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Brijmani Devi Devendra Jain Samiti, through Its President Rai Virendra Prasad Jain and Another Vs Smt. Suman Dubey

Ram Lakhan Vs Ram Dular and 4 Others