Judgment 1. THE husband-petitioner has impugned in revision an order dated 16. 1. 92 as passed by the learned Additional district Judge. 11th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No. 52 of 1991 whereby the learned Trial Judge on an application made by the wife-respondent directed the husband-petitioner to be medically examined for determining if he is potent and capable of doing sexual intercourse. The Id. Trial judge directed the Director of Health Services, Government of West Bengal, to make necessary arrangement for the said medical examination (of the husband-petitioner for determining whether he is potent and is capable of having sexual intercourses) either by a doctor or by a Board of Doctors according to the discretion of the Director of Health Services and directed further that the Director of Health Services is to inform the Court about the date, place and time for the said examination and the fees necessary for the said purpose. 2. IT is the husband petitioner's case as made out in an application under section 12 (l) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, that the marriage has not been consummated owing to impotency of the wife respondent and as such, the marriage which is a voidable one should be unalled by a decree of nullity. The wife- respondent-opposite party contested the proceeding by filing a written statement in which it has been averred, inter alia, that she was never under the treatment of any Gynecologist for any sexual abnormalities and sexual disability as alleged by her husband. She admitted having been examined by one Dr. Sobha Ghosh, who asked her husband to attend her Chamber to have a detailed discussion, but her husband did not agree. Thereafter her father requested her father-in-law to make the husband agree to meet Dr. Sobha ghosh in her chamber accompanied by her husband, but her husband did not agree. There was no defect or sexual abonrmality in her as alleged or at all. She denied that the marriage was run through by way of a false representation from her parents. In paragraph 17 of her written statement, she particularly averred that her husband never kissed hex and never indulged in any sexual play since the Fulsajya night. The usual and cold behaviour of the husband-petitioner has cast a doubt in the mind of the wife-respondent about her husband's capacity of having a copulation and/or his potency. In paragraph 17 of her written statement, she particularly averred that her husband never kissed hex and never indulged in any sexual play since the Fulsajya night. The usual and cold behaviour of the husband-petitioner has cast a doubt in the mind of the wife-respondent about her husband's capacity of having a copulation and/or his potency. In paragraph 22 of her written statement she further averred that she had no physical defects and abnormalities for which she can be said to be impotent or she could be accountable for the marriage not being consummated. She stated further that the husband-petitioner was himself guilty of not behaving as a loving and true husband and having failed to discharge his marital obligation, was out to annul the marriage on a false or concocted allegation. Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the husband-petitioner contended before us that in order to prove a case of non consummation of marriage owing to impotency of the wife, the husband is never called upon to prove his own physical capacity to undergo a sexual cohabitation and in that view of the matter, whatever might have been averred by the wife respondent, there not having been any specific pleading taken by her that the husband was himself impotent, the order impugned directing a medical examination of the husband-petitioner was beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court and hence ought to be set aside. We have searched in vain for a specific pleading taken by the wife-respondent about the impotency of the husband or physics an infirmity to undergo a sexual act of co-habitation. Indeed she suspected her husband about his capacity of having a sexual act and/or potency but that was a mere surmise and not a specific averment. 3. MR. Bagchi, appearing for the respondent-wife contended before us that by virtue of the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure in Order 32a Rule 5, the Court has been vested with an additional duty to enquire into the facts as reasonably as possible as alleged by the plaintiff and as alleged by the defendant. We are still in the adversary system of adjudication in the trial before Matrimonial Courts and we have not as yet adverted to the inquisitorial type of enquiry as may be envisaged through a family court with the help of a family counsel. We are still in the adversary system of adjudication in the trial before Matrimonial Courts and we have not as yet adverted to the inquisitorial type of enquiry as may be envisaged through a family court with the help of a family counsel. As the present pleadings stand now, we think that the order impugned is really uncalled for and is liable to be set aside. We make it clear that even though both the sides have adduced evidence, no last word has yet been pronounced in the trial itself and if the respondent-wife takes any specific pleading by way of amendment of her pleadings, there can still be a scope for the court below to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It would perhaps not be apposite on our part to make any final pronouncement in this particular perspective. 4. WITH these observations, even though we have set aside the order impugned, we would direct an expeditious trial in the matter even though we make it clear that the wife respondent can still amend her pleadings subject to such direction as may be passed by the trial court in this regard. The revisional application stands allowed. Let this order be communicated to the Court below, at once. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by Asstt. Registrar (Court) be handed over to both the contending parties through their Ld. Advocates. 5. NISITH Kumar Batabyal J. While I agree with the conclusiion of my Learned Brother, I would like to add a few words on the point raised by Mr. Bagchi, the learned Lawyer for the wife-respondent. 6. RULE 5 of Order 32a C. P. C. no doubt casts a duty upon the court to enquire so far as it reasonably can, into the facts alleged by the plaintiff and into any fact alleged by the defendant. The expression "any" does not and cannot mean irrelevant facts or a surmise. It means only relevant facts. Therefore, the stand taken by Mr. Bagchi, Ld. Lawyer, that the Court below was bound to advert to the facts as alleged in the petition of the wife, is not based on sound logic and the facts vis-a-vis the pleadings. Therefore, I think that there is hardly and scope for allowing the petition of the respondent-wife at the present stage.