In a family law matter, the High Court holds that medical examination seeking proof of non-consummation or virginity would violate privacy and is not a valid ground to adjudicate divorce claims.
Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Jain, dismissed a husband’s plea seeking a medical examination of his wife, commonly described in the petition as a “virginity test” or two-finger test, in the context of a pending divorce proceeding. The order was passed on 21 January 2026 and came to light following recent reporting.
Case Title & Procedural Status
The case BK v. PK, originated from a divorce petition in a family court in Madhya Pradesh filed by the husband on grounds of alleged cruelty, including refusal by the wife to engage in a physical relationship. After the family court refused to order any medical test, the husband filed a revision petition before the High Court.
Legal Issue
The principal issue before the High Court was whether it could direct a medical examination of the wife to determine whether sexual intercourse had taken place, as part of assessing allegations of cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage. The husband contended that such evidence was necessary to substantiate his claim.
Final Ruling
The High Court dismissed the husband’s plea, holding that:
- A request for a medical or virginity test of the wife amounts to invasion of privacy.
- The state of hymen or results of such a test cannot conclusively establish whether sexual intercourse has occurred and is not relevant for the purposes of divorce.
- Denial of sex is not, by itself, a ground of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Court clarified that the husband may adduce other forms of evidence to establish his allegation that his wife was disinclined to enter into sexual relations, but medical examination of the wife for virginity was neither necessary nor appropriate.
Court’s Reasoning
In its reasoning, the Bench observed that:
- Virginity or two-finger tests have been deprecated by judicial authorities and are considered medically and legally unreliable as proof of sexual history.
- Medically, the presence or absence of hymen is not a determinative factor as it may remain intact after intercourse or be absent due to non-sexual activity.
- Ordering such an examination would result in humiliation and invasion of privacy, particularly in light of the fundamental right to privacy recognised under the Constitution.
- The Court reiterated that consent to sexual relations and personal medical examinations are matters of individual autonomy, and refusal to engage in sexual intercourse is not independently actionable as a ground for divorce.
The High Court also noted that such examination is neither a ground to declare a marriage void or voidable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act nor relevant under Section 13, which deals with divorce.
Implications of the Order
- The ruling affirms that medical examination for virginity or similar invasive tests should not be directed by courts in matrimonial disputes, particularly where it involves personal bodily integrity and privacy.
- It aligns with broader judicial trends rejecting virginity tests and emphasising that such tests are medically unscientific and legally irrelevant.
- The judgment clarifies that denial of sexual relations is not, in itself, a standalone ground for divorce under existing statutory provisions and must be considered alongside other relevant evidence.
- It reinforces the position that courts must carefully balance evidentiary needs with constitutional rights, particularly the right to privacy and dignity, in family law matters.
The judgment adds clarity on the legal and constitutional limitations on ordering invasive medical examinations in matrimonial disputes, the inadmissibility of virginity tests as evidence, and the proper scope of claims relating to refusal of sexual relations within marriage.
