MP High Court Rejects Husband’s Petition Seeking Virginity Test of Wife, Calls It Violation of Privacy

Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a husband’s petition requesting a medical examination of his wife to determine her virginity. Justice Vivek Jain ruled that the petition, filed in a marital dispute, constituted an unnecessary and invasive intrusion into the wife’s privacy.

Background of the Case
The husband had filed for divorce on the grounds of cruelty, claiming that his wife refused to engage in sexual relations with him. The wife, in turn, denied the allegations and accused him of dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and unnatural sexual acts. She also clarified that she was mentally fit and capable of making decisions.

Husband’s Claim for Medical Examination
In family court, the husband argued that since his wife had accused him of unnatural sexual acts, a medical examination was necessary to ascertain whether she had ever engaged in sexual intercourse, including anal sex. The family court rejected his plea, stating that such an examination was unnecessary for a cruelty-based divorce petition.

High Court’s Observation
Justice Vivek Jain noted, “There is no merit in the petitioner’s argument to subject the respondent to a medical examination. The proposed examination amounts to a virginity test, which is a violation of privacy. Refusal to engage in sexual relations alone does not constitute grounds for divorce.”

The court further emphasized that even if a sexual act had occurred years earlier, a medical test conducted later would not be conclusive. Moreover, the presence or absence of a hymen is not a reliable indicator of sexual activity, as it may remain intact after intercourse in rare cases or be damaged through non-sexual activities.

Protection of Privacy and Dignity
The court’s ruling underscores that invasive medical tests cannot be used as a tool in marital disputes. It reiterated that a woman’s consent and autonomy over her body are paramount, and refusal to have sex does not justify subjecting her to humiliating procedures.