BK v. PK, 2026
The judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of bodily autonomy and privacy under Article 21.
Judgement Details
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
28 January 2026
Judges
Justice Vivek Jain
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court alleging cruelty by the wife.
-
One of the primary allegations was that the wife refused to enter into a physical/sexual relationship with him.
-
The wife denied the allegations and contended that:
-
She was subjected to dowry harassment.
-
She suffered physical and mental cruelty.
-
She was subjected to acts of sodomy by the husband.
-
-
During the proceedings, the husband filed an application seeking:
-
A medical examination of the wife to determine whether she had ever engaged in sexual intercourse.
-
Examination to ascertain whether she had been subjected to sodomy or anal intercourse.
-
-
The Family Court dismissed the application for medical examination.
-
Aggrieved, the husband approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the Family Court’s order.
Issues
-
Whether the Court can direct a virginity test or two-finger test of a wife in a matrimonial dispute alleging cruelty?
-
Whether refusal by a wife to enter into a physical relationship constitutes a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955?
-
Whether the right to privacy can be denied to a spouse during matrimonial proceedings?
-
Whether a medical examination to ascertain past sexual conduct or sodomy is relevant or conclusive for deciding a divorce petition?
Judgement
-
The High Court dismissed the husband’s petition.
-
It upheld the Family Court’s refusal to order a medical examination of the wife.
-
The Court held that:
-
A virginity test or two-finger test would amount to a serious invasion of privacy.
-
Such a test is medically inconclusive and legally irrelevant for deciding a divorce petition.
-
-
The Court observed that refusal to engage in sexual intercourse:
-
Is not a ground for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
-
Is not a ground to declare a marriage void or voidable under Sections 11 or 12.
-
-
The husband was permitted to lead other evidence, if any, to establish allegations of cruelty.
Held
-
Courts cannot compel a spouse to undergo a virginity or two-finger test in matrimonial disputes.
-
The right to privacy subsists even during matrimonial litigation.
-
Medical tests aimed at determining past sexual conduct are neither relevant nor determinative for divorce proceedings.
-
Allegations of sodomy, if made long after the alleged act, cannot justify intrusive medical examinations.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of bodily autonomy and privacy under Article 21.
-
It aligns with the consistent judicial trend rejecting virginity and two-finger tests as unscientific, degrading, and violative of dignity.
-
The Court clearly demarcates the scope of cruelty under matrimonial law, holding that sexual refusal alone does not meet the statutory threshold.
-
By recognising medical limitations regarding the condition of the hymen, the Court avoids reliance on pseudo-scientific assumptions.
-
The ruling discourages the use of intrusive litigation tactics to harass spouses under the guise of evidence collection.
-
The decision strengthens gender-sensitive adjudication in matrimonial disputes while preserving evidentiary fairness.