Invasion Of Woman’s Privacy: Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses Husband’s Plea Seeking Virginity Test On Wife
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed a husband’s plea seeking to subject his wife to a virginity or “two-finger” test in a matrimonial dispute where he alleged cruelty on the basis that she refused to enter into a physical relationship. The Court declined to interfere with the refusal to order such medical examination, holding that a virginity test would amount to an invasion of the woman’s privacy and cannot be directed. It noted that the question of past sexual activity is neither determinative nor necessary for deciding the issues raised and clarified that the husband remains free to rely on other evidence to support his allegation of disinclination towards physical relations.
A husband filed a petition challenging a Family Court order dated 05.12.2025 rejecting his application seeking medical examination of the respondent-wife. In the underlying divorce petition on the ground of cruelty, the husband pleaded that the wife “has refused to enter into physical relationship” and treated it as a factor of cruelty. The wife, in her written statement, denied the allegations and pleaded harassment on account of dowry demand, physical and mental cruelty, and that she was subjected to “acts of sodomy” by the husband; she also denied the allegation that she was mentally infirm or ill.
Before the Family Court, the husband asserted that there had been “no physical relationship” at any point and, citing the wife’s allegation of sodomy, sought her medical examination to ascertain whether she had ever entered into sexual relations with anyone and whether she had been subjected to “sodomy/anal intercourse.” The Family Court rejected the application on the ground that the divorce petition was on cruelty and that the examination sought could not be ordered in view of the pleadings. In the High Court, the husband relied on Sharda v. Dharmpal to contend that privacy cannot be claimed where medical examination is sought on grounds of divorce.
It stated what the husband sought: “it is seen that the petitioner is seeking medical examination to the extent that whether the respondent/wife has ever had sexual relations with anybody or whether she has been subjected to anal intercourse.”
On relevance to the matrimonial cause, the Court recorded: “The parties entering into sexual relationship or not, is not a ground of divorce and the fact may be relevant only for the limited purpose in the present case that whether the wife has committed cruelty upon the husband by refusing to enter into sexual relationship.” It further stated: “Otherwise, it is neither a ground for declaring the marriage as void nor voidable under Sections 11 and 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, nor a ground of divorce under Section 13.” The Court added: “Impotence has not been alleged on the other party so that it would have necessitated medical examination of the other party.”
On the sodomy-related request, the Court stated: “if sodomy has been committed much prior to medical examination, then sodomy cannot be ascertained in medical examination being conducted many years after the alleged act … and it would amount to nothing but invasion of privacy of the person and her humiliation.”
On the request to ascertain prior sexual relations, it recorded: “it is nothing but seeking virginity test of the wife in different words.” It stated: “the recent judicial trend is heavily against conducting virginity test of a woman” and recorded the medical point that “presence or absence of hymen, would not be a determinative factor.” It noted the Supreme Court’s reference to Health Ministry guidelines that “status of hymen is irrelevant” and that an intact hymen does not rule out sexual activity nor a torn hymen proves it. The Court concluded that the prayer would be “nothing but invasion on privacy of the respondent… and not essential to adjudicate on the issues arising in the present case.”
The Court stated: “this Court does not find any substance in the plea made by the petitioner/husband to subject the respondent/wife to medical examination as the said examination would be nothing but a virginity test which would be an invasion of privacy of the individual and is not relevant for the purpose of divorce.”
It further recorded that “the petitioner can adduce other evidence to prove disinclination of the wife to enter into sexual relations” and that “virginity test or ‘two-finger test’ of the wife would neither be relevant nor be conclusive for the purposes of the divorce petition.”
“Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mohd. Aadil Usmani – Advocate
Case Title: BK v PK
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-JBP:7081.
Case Number: M.P. No. 109 of 2026.
Bench: Justice Vivek Jain.
