CR No.5133 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5133 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.08.2010 Bhupinderjit Singh .. Petitioner Versus Gursharan Kaur .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * * Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) The epitome of facts, culminating in the commencement of, and relevant for disposal of present revision petition and, emanating from the record are, that the marriage of petitioner-Bhupinderjit Singh (hereinafter to be referred as “the petitioner”) was solemnized with respondent-Gurdarshan Kaur (for short “the respondent) on 28.07.2010, as per Sikh rites, in District Patiala. The marriage ceremonies were stated to have taken place at Kohinoor Classic Marriage Palace, on 28.07.2007. The petitioner claimed that as per custom of the family he was not allowed to sleep with respondent on 28.07.2007. On the night of 29.07.2007, when the petitioner tried to consummate the marriage, the behaviour of the respondent turned ugly. She resisted the act of consummation and stated the truth about the subsistence of her first marriage. 2. The petitioner claimed that in view of the subsistence of the first marriage, his marriage with the respondent is null and void. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed a petition for declaring their marriage as null and void, invoking the provisions of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. CR No.5133 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: 3. The respondent contested the petition, stoutly denied the existence of her first marriage and all other allegation contained in the petition and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. During the pendency of the main petition, petitioner moved an application for constituting Medical Board for getting the virginity test of the respondent on the same line of pleading as contained in the main petition. 5. The respondent contested the prayer of the petitioner and again denied her first marriage. According to the respondent the petitioner intended to collect the evidence, which cannot legally be permitted. 6. The trial Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 16.04.2010. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record of the case with his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition. 8. Ex facie the argument of learned counsel that since the virginity test was very much essential to prove the case of the petitioner for annulment of the marriage between the parties, so, the trial Judge ought to have accepted his application, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record, that the marriage ceremonies of petitioner with the respondent were performed on 28.07.2007. She remained with him after the marriage. The petitioner claimed that on 29.07.2007, she told him about the subsistence of her first marriage. But the respondent has stoutly denied the same. The sole ground for conducting the indicated virginity test, was stated to be essential to prove the existence of first marriage of the respondent. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the controversy involved in the matter, to me, this prayer of the petitioner cannot legally be accepted in view of the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case CR No.5133 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: Smt.Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974, wherein it was held that the right against self-incrimination and personal liberty enshrined under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India are non-derogable rights and cannot be tinkered with in any manner. To me, if the petitioner wants to prove the existence of first marriage of the respondent, then, he can produce any other evidence in this relevant connection. He cannot possibly be permitted to creat the evidence and to fill up the lacuna in his evidence in this regard. Be that as it may, but in any case, granting the permission for virginity test of the respondent would be against her fundamental rights, the cardinal principles of natural justice and secret modesty of a female. 11. In this manner, the trial Judge has recorded the valid reasons for dismissing the application of the petitioner in the impugned order. Such finding cannot be interfered with unless the same are perverse or without jurisdiction 12. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order cannot possibly be set aside, while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as escalated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of decision of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the revision petition is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) August 17, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet Whether to be referred to report ? Yes/No