In a landmark decision upholding the constitutional right to privacy and bodily integrity, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband’s petition seeking a medical examination of his wife to prove non-consummation of marriage. The Court categorically held that such an examination is nothing but a "virginity test" in different words—a practice that is medically inconclusive and legally offensive to a woman’s dignity.

Justice Vivek Jain, presiding at the Jabalpur Bench, delivered the order in Misc. Petition No. 109 of 2026, asserting that the presence or absence of a hymen cannot be treated as a determinative factor in legal disputes regarding sexual history.

The legal battle began when the husband filed for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, citing "cruelty." His primary grievance was that his wife had refused to enter into a physical relationship with him since their marriage. In Indian matrimonial law, persistent and unjustified refusal to have sexual relations can, in certain circumstances, be viewed as mental cruelty.

However, the wife contested these claims in her written statement. She alleged that she was the victim of harassment related to dowry demands and had been subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Most significantly, she accused the husband of committing acts of sodomy (unnatural sex) against her.

In an attempt to "settle" these conflicting narratives, the husband moved an application before the Family Court. He requested a medical examination of the wife to ascertain two things:

Whether she had ever entered into a sexual relationship with anyone (essentially a virginity test).
Whether she had been subjected to anal intercourse (to verify or disprove the sodomy allegations).

The Family Court rejected the husband’s application on December 5, 2025, stating that a medical examination was not warranted based on the pleadings of a divorce case centered on cruelty. Aggrieved by this, the husband approached the High Court.

Representing the husband, Advocate Mohd. Aadil Usmani relied on the famous Supreme Court precedent Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003). In that case, the Apex Court had observed that in matrimonial matters, the right to privacy is not absolute and can be restricted if a medical examination is essential to decide on a ground for divorce, such as "unsoundness of mind" or "impotency."

The husband argued that because he was alleging a lack of sexual intimacy as "cruelty," he had a right to seek medical evidence to prove his case.

Justice Vivek Jain, after carefully analyzing the facts and existing legal frameworks, disagreed with the husband's logic. The Court’s reasoning was divided into several critical legal and medical observations:

1. Medical Myth of the Virginity Test

The Court noted that the demand for a medical test to check if a woman has ever had sex is based on a flawed medical understanding.

"It is medically well settled that even after sexual intercourse, the hymen may remain intact in some rare cases. On the other hand, the hymen may be damaged even without sexual intercourse upon any other physical activity like sports or exercise," the Court observed.

Consequently, the Court ruled that the "state of the hymen" is not a determinative factor. A test that cannot yield a conclusive result should not be used to humiliate a litigant.

2. Denial of Sex is Not a Direct Ground for Divorce

The Court made a vital distinction between "grounds for divorce" and "evidence of cruelty."

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act: Lists grounds like adultery, cruelty, and desertion.
Sections 11 & 12: Deal with void and voidable marriages (e.g., if a party is impotent).

The Court pointed out that the husband had not alleged impotence (the inability to perform sex). He only alleged refusal to have sex. While refusal might be evidence of cruelty, it is not a standalone legal ground to end a marriage or declare it void. Therefore, the "necessity" for a medical test—which was present in the Sharda case regarding mental health—did not exist here.

3. Sodomy Cannot be Proven Years Later

Addressing the allegations of sodomy, the Court noted that such acts cannot be medically verified years after the alleged occurrence. Subjecting a woman to an anal examination in such a scenario would serve no evidentiary purpose and would be "nothing but an invasion of privacy and her humiliation."

The High Court drew strength from the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai, where the "two-finger test" was heavily deprecated. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare guidelines also emphasize that the status of the hymen is irrelevant to determining sexual activity.

Furthermore, the Court cited a detailed 2023 judgment by the Delhi High Court (SR. Sephy v. CBI), which declared that virginity tests conducted on female detainees or accused persons are unconstitutional. Justice Jain extended this logic to matrimonial disputes, holding that:

Virginity tests violate Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Dignity).
The concept of "custodial dignity" and "bodily integrity" applies to all women, whether they are in a kitchen, a prison, or a courtroom.
The test is "sexist" and rooted in a "misogynistic practice" of equating a woman’s "purity" with a physical membrane.

The High Court concluded that the husband’s prayer was an attempt to bypass the law through a "misogynistic" procedure.

The final ruling stated:

The husband’s petition has no substance.
A virginity test or "two-finger test" is neither relevant nor conclusive for a divorce petition based on cruelty.
The husband can prove his wife’s "disinclination" toward sexual relations through other forms of evidence (witnesses, communication records, conduct) but cannot demand a physical intrusion.
The petition was dismissed, upholding the wife's right to live with dignity.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that the "right to evidence" in a court of law does not grant a spouse the right to violate the bodily autonomy of the other. By separating the medical myths of virginity from the legal realities of cruelty, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ensured that Indian courtrooms remain spaces of justice rather than tools for humiliation.

For legal practitioners and couples in dispute, the message is clear: Cruelty must be proven through conduct, not through the invasive examination of a spouse's body.

Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 109 of 2026
Bench: Justice Vivek Jain
Date of Order: January 21, 2026