MUMBAI, April 17 -- The Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that trial courts have the power to refer parties to a matrimonial litigation to psychiatric evaluation, but such discretionary power cannot be exercised casually or without any prima facie case. A bench of justice SG Chapalgaonkar said matrimonial courts possess sufficient powers to direct medical examination in case decree for divorce under section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act is sought on grounds of incurable unsound mind or severe mental disorder of the other spouse. To prove their case in such instances, the petitioner spouse is required to establish that the unsoundness of mind of the other spouse is incurable, or that the mental disorder is of such kind and to such an extent that they cannot reasonably be expected to live with the spouse. The high court said to arrive at a just conclusion in such cases, the matrimonial court can exercise its power under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure and get aid of medical experts to determine if the other spouse is of unsound mind or not. The court, however, noted that such orders for medical examination of a spouse can be passed only on satisfying itself of existence of the grounds for exercising the discretion. The court was hearing a petition filed by a 38-year-old woman from Sakri in Dhule district. Her estranged husband had filed a petition seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, desertion and mental disorder of his wife. The 34-year-old man claimed that his wife was of incurably unsound mind or suffering from mental disorder, as he found her behaviour abnormal and she was never ready for a physical relationship after marriage. Claiming that she was secretly under medication for some mental illness which was suppressed from him, the husband filed a plea seeking her medical examination by an expert psychiatrist. On August 2, 2025, the matrimonial court allowed his plea and ordered the woman to remain present for medical examination before the psychiatrist at the civil hospital in Dhule. The hospital in turn was ordered to submit its report in a sealed cover. The woman subsequently approached the high court, challenging the order. Her counsel, advocate Rutuja L Jakhande, submitted that the matrimonial court had passed the order mechanically and except the bald assertions of the husband, there was no material to prima facie indicate that the woman ever suffered psychological disorder or unsoundness of mind. Justice Chapalgaonkar accepted Jakhande's submissions and struck down the lower court order. The judge said the matrimonial court did not apply its mind to the pleadings and material on record; it had also not satisfied itself as to the existence of grounds for referring the petitioner for medical examination....