The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on 21 January, firmly rejected a husband’s request to subject his wife to a virginity test under the guise of a medical examination. The man had approached the court claiming that his wife was refusing to engage in sexual intercourse with him and argued that a medical test would help support his case. The matter came up before a single bench of Justice Vivek Jain, who was hearing a divorce petition filed by the husband.

The court dismissed the husband’s plea in clear terms, stating that such a request had no legal standing and violated the basic rights of the wife. Justice Vivek Jain observed that forcing a woman to undergo a virginity test would amount to an invasion of her privacy and would not assist the court in deciding the divorce petition. The judge also clarified that refusal to have sexual intercourse does not qualify as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

While explaining the reasoning, the court said that the husband could rely on other forms of evidence if he wished to establish his claim that the wife was unwilling to engage in marital relations. However, subjecting her to a medical examination aimed at determining virginity was neither relevant nor acceptable. Emphasising this point, the judge 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 as refusal to enter into sexual intercourse in itself is not a ground of divorce and the petitioner can adduce other evidence to prove disinclination of the wife to enter into sexual relations, as alleged in the divorce petition and virginity test or “two-finger test” of the wife would neither be relevant nor be conclusive for the purposes of the divorce petition. It would be nothing but an invasion of privacy,” the judge stated.

Justice Jain further explained that the husband’s argument did not fall within the legal framework of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court noted that the law clearly specifies the grounds on which a marriage can be declared void, voidable, or dissolved through divorce, and the husband’s claim did not meet any of those criteria. On this point, the judge added:

“… 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. Impotence has not been alleged on the other party, so that it would have necessitated medical examination of the other party,” the judge added.

High Court reiterates virginity test is unconstitutional and medically unreliable

The High Court went on to underline that virginity tests are not only unconstitutional but also unreliable from a medical perspective. The bench observed that modern medical science does not support the idea that a woman’s virginity can be determined through physical examination. The court noted that the presence or absence of the hymen cannot conclusively prove whether a woman has engaged in sexual intercourse.

Explaining this in detail, the court referred to established medical understanding and recent judicial thinking on the issue. It pointed out that in some rare cases, the hymen may remain intact even after sexual intercourse, while in other situations it may be damaged due to physical activities unrelated to sex. On this basis, the High Court said:

“The recent judicial trend is heavily against conducting virginity test of a woman and even otherwise it is medically well settled that even after sexual intercourse hymen may remain intact in some rare cases, and on other hand, hymen may be damaged even without sexual intercourse upon any other physical activity and, therefore, presence or absence of hymen, would not be a determinative factor to infer that whether there has been sexual intercourse with the respondent ever or not,” the High Court said.

The background of the case showed that the husband had sought divorce on the ground of cruelty, arguing that his wife’s refusal to have sexual intercourse amounted to mental cruelty. The wife, however, made serious counter-allegations against him. She accused her husband of sodomy and claimed that she was being harassed for dowry. These competing claims had already been examined by the family court, which rejected the husband’s request for a medical examination last month.

Unhappy with the family court’s decision, the husband moved the High Court. His lawyer argued that in matrimonial disputes, when a medical examination is sought in connection with divorce grounds, the right to privacy should not apply in the same manner. The High Court did not accept this argument and reiterated that conducting a two-finger test or virginity test would serve no legal purpose and would only violate the woman’s right to privacy.

Referring to medical guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which have also been considered by the Supreme Court, the High Court noted that such practices have been strongly discouraged at the highest judicial level. Summing up its position, the court observed:

“Looking to the aforesaid medical guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, which have been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement and ultimately the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of conducting two-finger test or virginity test, therefore, the prayer being made in the present petition would be nothing but invasion on privacy of the respondent, which otherwise also is not a direct ground to seek divorce, and not essential to adjudicate on the issues arising in the present case,” the High Court noted.

With these observations, the Madhya Pradesh High Court made it clear that personal dignity, privacy, and established legal principles cannot be compromised under the pretext of gathering evidence in matrimonial disputes.