Court Rejects Husband’s Plea
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that forcing a woman to undergo a virginity test violates her right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed a husband’s plea seeking a medical test to determine his wife’s virginity.
The court emphasized that Article 21 guarantees not just life and personal liberty but also dignity. “No woman can be forced to undergo a virginity test. It is a violation of her fundamental rights,” the court stated.
Case Background
The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married on April 30, 2023, as per Hindu customs. Soon after, the wife alleged that her husband was impotent and refused to live with him. She later filed an application under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking ₹20,000 per month as maintenance.
While the Family Court was deciding on her maintenance plea, the husband requested a virginity test on his wife. He claimed they never had intercourse and accused her of having an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. The Family Court rejected his request, prompting him to file a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act.
Court’s Ruling
The High Court examined the legality of the husband’s demand. It referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022), which ruled that conducting a ‘two-finger test’ or per vaginum examination violates constitutional rights. The court also cited the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Sr. Sephy v. CBI & Ors. (2023), which declared virginity tests unconstitutional under Article 21.
Based on these precedents, the court held that forcing a woman to undergo such medical test violates her dignity and personal liberty.
No Justification for Virginity Test
The court stressed that Article 21 is the “heart of fundamental rights.” Women have the right to be treated with dignity, and a virginity test breaches this right. If the husband wanted to refute allegations of impotency, the court noted, he could undergo medical tests himself or present other evidence.
“He cannot force his wife to take a virginity test to fill gaps in his evidence,” the court ruled. Such a demand, it added, violates fundamental rights, natural justice, and a woman’s modesty.
Final Verdict
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the Family Court’s decision. It ruled that the order rejecting the virginity test was just, reasonable, and upheld constitutional principles.
