Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P. Murli Krishna vs Dr. P. Ugalakshmi Devi on 2 September, 2025
APHC010209722025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Tuesday, the second day of September, two thousand and twenty five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No. 1087 of 2025
Between:
P. Murli Krishna ...Petitioner
and
Dr. P. Ugalakshmi Devi ...Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner:
1. V.Surya Kiran Kumar
Counsel for the respondent:
1. Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda
The Court made the following:
2
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025
ORDER:
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the order, dated 18.02.2025, allowing I.A.No.48 of 2025 in I.A.No.436 of 2018 in F.C.O.P.No.107 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, filed by the respondent / petitioner / petitioner under Section 151 C.P.C to modify the order determining the hospital for examining the petitioner / respondent / respondent and to direct the said hospital for examining the respondent for potency and send report as per the directions of this Court.
2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial Court.
3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:
a. The petitioner filed application for medical examination of the respondent for potency test. The said application was dismissed. On revision, vide C.R.P.No.1067 of 2022, dated 21.08.2023, this Court allowed the application and directed the trial Court to determine the hospital to which the respondent can be referred. Against the said order, an appeal in S.L.P (Civil) No.25961 of 2023 before the Supreme Court was filed and it was dismissed on 28.11.2023. Then, the trial Court passed the following order on 13.02.2025:-
"Heard & perused the record. The petitioner filed IA 436/18 on or before this Court which was dismissed on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred CRP 1067/2022 on the file of Hon'ble High Court of A.P and the same is allowed setting aside the order in IA 438/18. Aggrieved by the orders of Hon'ble High Court, respondent preferred SLP 25961/23 and it 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025 was disposed of dismissing the SLP dated 28/11/2023. Therefore, the order of Hon'ble High Court has become final. Hence, the respondent is directed to undergo medical examination by Dr. G.V.Krishna, Urologist Gowri Gopal Hospital, retired Professor, Medical College, Kurnool, Dr. Chandrasekhar Reddy, psychologist, Government General Hospital or any competent doctor to address his status of potency and for specific opinion of consummation of marriage on payment of process by the petitioner.
Call on 17/2/2025."
Thereafter, I.A.No.48 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner on 17.02.2025 seeking to modify the order, dated 13.02.2025 to determine the hospital for examination of the respondent and requested to give direction to the hospital for conducting the potency test to the respondent and to send report as per the direction of this High Court. It was stated in the affidavit annexed to the petition in I.A.No.48 of 2025 that the counsel for the petitioner had failed to bring to the notice of the Court about determining the hospital to which the respondent could be referred and therefore, the trial Court granted the prayer mentioned in I.A.No.436 of 2018 (as it is), and therefore, the order, dated 13.02.2025, contained an option given to the respondent to undergo the test either with the doctors mentioned in the order or any other competent doctor and consequently, it had given wider option to the respondent to undergo the test by any doctor of his choice and moreover, there is no direction to examine the respondent for potency test and submit their report directly to the Court.
4BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025 b. The respondent filed counter opposing the petition mainly stating as follows:
This Court directed to determine the hospital to which the respondent can be referred and as such, the discretion is vested in the trial Court and not the petitioner. The petitioner seeking modification of the order is unknown to law. The trial Court cannot modify the direction given by the High Court and if the petitioner requires, she may approach the High Court seeking modification of the order. There is no provision in the C.P.C. to modify the order of the High Court by a lower Court or its own order, except under Section 152 C.P.C whereunder any clerical mistake can be corrected by the same Court. The petitioner also filed a criminal case against the respondent and his family members vide C.C.No.1 of 2018 on the file of the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and clubbed for joint trial with another case vide SCST No.28 of 2016, wherein the petitioner sought potency test of the respondent, vide Crl.M.P.No.548 of 2019 and the same was allowed on 02.04.2024 as per which it was stated that the potency test was conducted by the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology and by various other departments and a final report, dated 12.04.2024, was submitted to the Court. The test report has not been challenged by the petitioner. The report was taken on file by the Sessions Court, Kurnool. So, the relief sought by the petitioner in this case was availed. Therefore, the relief has become infructuous. Moreover, the petition is not maintainable being barred under Section 11(4) read with Order II, Rule 2 CPC and it amounts to double jeopardy. The copy of the test report, dated 12.04.2024 has been annexed to the counter to read it as part and parcel of the counter to take it on file and read as evidence in the enquiry in the petition before the trial Court.5
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025 The report was suppressed by the petitioner with an ill motive. The respondent prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Judge, Family Court, Kurnool, allowed the application holding as follows:
"In the result, the petition is allowed. The order in I.A.No.436 of 2018 is amended. The respondent is directed to undergo medical examination by Dr. G.V.Krishna, Urologist, Gowri Gopal hospital, Retd. Professor, Medical College, Kurnool and Dr. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Psychologist, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, to assess his status of potency and to give scientific opinion of consummation of marriage, before 28.02.2025 and the hospital shall submit its report immediately after process of examination and result. Address a letter to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, on payment of process by the petitioner."
5. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent in I.A.No.48 of 2025 preferred this revision petition.
6. The revision petitioner mainly raised the following grounds:
(i) This Court, by order dated 21.08.2023, in C.R.P.No.1067 of 2022 directed as follows: "The trial Court is directed to determine the hospital to which the respondent can be referred." Therefore, the determination of the hospital for examination of the petitioner is to be decided by the trial Court but not the respondent / wife.6
BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025
(ii) This order was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 28.11.2023 in S.L.P (Civil) No.25961 of 2023 and as such, the modification of its earlier order by the trial Court is erroneous;
(iii) The trial Court failed to see that the respondent / wife did not file any reply or objection to the potency test report, dated 12.04.2024 issued by the department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Government Medical College, Kurnool, in view of the order in Crl.M.P.No.548 of 2019 in C.C.No.1 of 2018;
(iv) The trial Court ought to have considered the averments in the counter and the annexed documents which included the potency test report, dt.12.04.2024, and noticed that the relief in the present petition became infructuous.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended as in the counter and further mainly submitted that the potency test report, dated 12.04.2024 can be taken as evidence in F.C.O.P.No.107 of 2016, and therefore, there is no need to modify the order.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent who is the petitioner before the trial court contended that on 13.02.2025, since there is an error in the order, I.A.No.48 of 2025 was filed and accordingly, the order impugned in this revision was passed. He further submitted that this respondent is seeking implementation of the order already passed and therefore, it is not correct to contend that the proceeding is hit by Section 11 C.P.C and that the names of the doctors as such were not opposed by the revision petitioner on any ground of prejudice etc., and therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order of the trial Court. It is also submitted further that the revision petitioner attended before the hospital in pursuance of the previous order but left 7 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025 without test and now challenging to avoid being tested by the doctors reputed for their integrity and that copies of attendance before the hospital had been to this Court vide memo filed on 05.08.2025. He further submitted that the potency test conducted in pursuance of the criminal proceedings was not done in the presence of a psychologist, whereas one of the presently named doctors is a psychologist and it is necessary to have a psychologist also in the panel of doctors who conduct potency test because it is not an issue of mere physical anomaly but it can be psychological issue as well. Therefore, the final report in criminal case cannot be accepted as a report in the proceeding in F.C.O.P.
9. It is pertinent to mention that this revision petition was filed challenging the order, dated 18.02.2025 and not the original order dated 13.02.2025 which was passed mainly in compliance of the order in C.R.P.No.1067 of 2022 without challenging it, the revision petitioner attended before the hospital, yet the test was not conducted on 13.02.2025 for not bringing medical record, Aadhar card, PAN card for identity. Whereas, I.A.No.48 of 2025 is only to modify the order passed on 13.02.2025. Since the order, dated 13.02.2205, is erroneous, the trial Court modified the order to avoid ambiguity and to remove the discretion given to the party to choose the doctor which is apparently not permitted. Merely because a report was submitted in pursuance of the proceedings taken in criminal case, the same may not be received as evidence in this case since, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, it was not submitted by a panel of doctors containing psychologist as well. Even in the grounds of revision, there is nothing alleged against the capacity or integrity of the named doctors of the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. Therefore, this Court is of 8 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1087 of 2025 the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order, dated 18.02.2025, impugned in this revision petition.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Date: 02.09.2025 RAR