Wife Cannot Be Compelled to Undergo Narco, Polygraph or DNA Tests in Divorce Proceedings, Holds Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court dismisses husband's writ petition seeking joint narco-analysis, polygraph and DNA tests to rebut impotency allegations, finding the application belated and legally untenable.

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has dismissed a civil writ petition filed by a husband who sought directions compelling both parties in a pending divorce case to undergo joint narco-analysis, polygraph, DNA and other medical tests. Justice Sanjeet Purohit, sitting as Vacation Judge, upheld the order of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara, which had rejected the husband's application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that a wife cannot be compelled to undergo such tests without her consent, that the husband had failed to establish any relevance of the proposed tests to the allegations of sexual incapacity, and that the application was filed at a belated stage after evidence of both parties had already concluded.

The Divorce Proceedings and the Husband's Application

The respondent-wife, Smt. Nidhi Jingar, had instituted a petition under Section 13(1)(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the trial court, seeking a decree of divorce on grounds of desertion, cruelty and allegations of sexual incapacity against her husband, Bihari Lal Jingar. The husband filed a reply denying these allegations and raising counter-allegations, contending that the wife had been unwilling to resume matrimonial cohabitation despite a court order under Section 9 of the Act directing restitution of conjugal rights. He further alleged that the wife had threatened to implicate him in false criminal and civil proceedings.

After evidence of both parties had been concluded and the matter had been posted for final arguments in Case No. 49/2024, the husband moved an application dated 8 May 2026 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC. Through this application, he sought directions that both parties be subjected to joint narco-analysis, polygraph, medical examination and DNA testing to rebut the allegations of sexual incompetence and impotency levelled against him. He offered to bear the entire cost of the proposed tests.

The wife opposed the application, contending that evidence had already been concluded, that the application was filed at a belated stage solely to delay the proceedings, that the husband had produced no documentary evidence during trial to rebut the allegations of sexual incapacity, and that she could not be compelled to undergo such tests against her will. The trial court rejected the application on 15 May 2026, prompting the husband to approach the High Court.

The Legal Questions Before the High Court

The writ petition raised two connected questions. First, whether the trial court had erred in rejecting the application for additional evidence and medical tests under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC at the post-evidence stage. Second, whether a court could direct a wife to undergo narco-analysis, polygraph or DNA testing in matrimonial proceedings concerning allegations of sexual incapacity, without her consent.

The husband's counsel argued that the trial court had dismissed the application in a predetermined and mechanical manner without appreciating the substantial issues raised. It was contended that the allegations of sexual incapacity could be effectively rebutted only through the proposed tests, and that rejection of the prayer amounted to denial of a fair opportunity to adduce evidence, causing serious prejudice to the husband's defence.

Reliance was placed on two Supreme Court judgments: Deep Mukherjee v. Sreyashi Banerjee, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 502, and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Purohit examined the factual matrix carefully. The court found that the application had been filed after evidence of both parties had concluded and the matter had reached the stage of final arguments. The husband had made no attempt during his own evidence to place any medical material on record to rebut the allegations of physical incapacity or impotence.

On the legal standard, the court drew on K.K. Velusamy to articulate the governing principle: the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC is not to be used routinely. It is exceptional in nature and cannot be invoked to fill omissions in evidence already led, to improve a party's case, or to delay proceedings. An applicant must demonstrate both the relevance of the proposed evidence and a bona fide necessity for its production at the stage at which the application is made.

The court also relied on Gayathri v. M. Girish, (2016) 14 SCC 142, which had affirmed that applications for reopening or recalling evidence are to be entertained only in compelling and acceptable circumstances, and that filing such applications after sufficient opportunity has been granted — particularly when final arguments have already been heard — amounts to an attempt to avoid an adverse judgment and is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.

Turning to the husband's reliance on Deep Mukherjee, the court found that the judgment did not advance his case. In that matter, the Supreme Court had set aside a High Court order dismissing an interlocutory application on the ground that the High Court had focused on the conduct of the parties rather than the merits of the trial court's order. The Supreme Court had upheld the direction for the husband alone to undergo a potentiality test, given his willingness to do so. Critically, the Supreme Court had not directed the wife to undergo any test against her consent. Justice Purohit held that the prayer for a joint medical examination of both husband and wife was “wholly misconceived and legally untenable.”

The court also addressed the specific tests sought. It found that neither the application nor the submissions before the High Court disclosed any facts establishing the relevance of DNA testing, polygraph examination or narco-analysis to the issue of alleged sexual incapacity or impotence. The connection between these tests and the matrimonial allegations was simply not made out.

On the burden of proof, the court concurred with the trial court's reasoning that since the allegations of sexual incapacity and impotence had been levelled by the wife, the burden of establishing those allegations rested primarily upon her. A court cannot be called upon to collect evidence on behalf of a litigant or to fill gaps in evidence that a party is under a legal obligation to establish.

The court concluded that the circumstances lent credence to the wife's contention that the application was not bona fide and had been filed at a belated stage with the sole view to delay the proceedings, amounting to a gross abuse of the process of law.

Scope of Article 227 Jurisdiction

The court also addressed the limits of its own supervisory jurisdiction. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court's power of superintendence does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from patent perversity, manifest illegality or jurisdictional error. The court found no such error in the trial court's order. Mere dissatisfaction with the conclusions of the trial court, the court held, cannot by itself constitute a valid ground for interference under Article 227.

Order

Justice Sanjeet Purohit dismissed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12287/2026 on 2 June 2026. The stay application and all pending applications were also dismissed. The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to transmit a copy of the order electronically to the court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur, District Bhilwara, forthwith.