Sonika Nitin Naik vs Nitin Vinayakrao Naik
2017 Latest Caselaw 639 Bom

                                                                                 982_WP937516.odt


         
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 9375 OF 2016

Sonika Nitin Naik
Age: 29 years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o At Kasod, Post Talni,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.
Present r/o House No. 5-13-72/1,
Padampura, Railway Station Road,
Aurangabad.                                                           ..PETITIONER

               VERSUS

Nitin Vinayakrao Naik
Age: 39 years, Occu.: Pr. Service,
R/o S. No. 139/1A, Bhelkenagar,
Kothrud, Pune-38.                                                     ..RESPONDENT

                                    ....
Mr. Anandsingh Bayas, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. P.G. Giri, Advocate for respondent.
                                    ....

                                                        CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 09th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by

consent for final disposal.

2. Divorce petition is filed by present petitioner - wife against

respondent - husband on the ground of impotency of respondent. The

1 / 2

982_WP937516.odt

petitioner has sought direction from the Court to be given to respondent

that he shall compulsorily undergo the potency test. This application has

been turned down by impugned order dated 18 th July, 2016. The Civil

Judge has reasoned that there is no provision of law by which such

compulsion can be brought upon the husband. The Civil Judge also

observed that at the most the petitioner may request the Court for drawing

of adverse inference against respondent, consistently with well settled

principles of law.

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner could not show to this Court any

provision of law or any case law which would advance the case of

petitioner in this matter.

4. I do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Petition

stands dismissed with costs. Liberty is granted to move to the Trial Court

for seeking divorce by mutual consent in accordance with law, if any, in

view of the statement made on behalf of respondent by his Counsel that

respondent is ready for divorce by mutual consent. Rule is discharged.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

2 / 2