The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the rejection of a husband's application seeking joint medical examination of himself and his wife, to refute the allegations of physical incapacity and impotency levelled by the wife in her divorce petition. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248]

The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit observed that firstly, the application was filed at a belated stage of the proceedings, and secondly, the petitioner failed to establish the relevance or necessity of the Narco Test, Polygraph test, DNA Test, etc. to the issue of alleged sexual incapacity or impotence.

The Court further observed that since the allegation were levelled by the respondent-wife, the burden of proof lied upon her. The Court could not be expected to collect evidence on behalf of a litigant.

For context, petitioner's wife had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and sexual incapacity & impotency of the petitioner. During the pendency of proceedings, an application was filed by the petitioner seeking joint narco-analysis test, polygraph test, medical examination and DNA testing of himself and the wife.

This application was rejected by the trial court. The order of the trial court was challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

It was contended that the application was filed for bringing on record additional evidence, since the allegations of sexual incapacity could be effectively rebutted only by conducting these tests.

On the contrary, it was submitted by the respondent that the application was filed at a belated stage after evidence by both the parties were concluded. It was submitted that the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence during trial to rebut the allegations regarding his sexual incapacity and impotency.

Further, it was argued that the wife could not be compelled to undergo these tests against her will.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that during the course of his own evidence, no endeavour was made by the petitioner to place any medical evidence on record to dispute such allegations.

Reference was made to the Supreme Court case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy to hold that, “where the circumstances of the case show that a party had sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence at appropriate stage but failed to do so, the application seeking re-opening of evidence / recalling of witnesses deserves to be rejected if it appears that the same has been filed with the oblique motive of causing unnecessary delay.”

The Court further observed that apart from making bald assertions regarding the necessity of these tests to rebut the allegations, no satisfactory explanation was furnished by the petitioner regarding such relevance or necessity.

The Court also agreed with the argument of the respondent that the wife could not be compelled to undergo such tests without her consent.

In this background, the Court observed that while it had the inherent power to permit additional evidence or recall a witness, such power was exceptional and could not be invoked in a routine manner.

The Court concluded that the application filed by the petitioner was not bona fide, and was intended only to delay the proceedings which amounted to gross abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed.

Title: B v N

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248

Click Here To Read/Download Order