JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard. 2. Perused the order impugned. 3. In a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed on the ground of mental disorder, the plaintiff- husband-non petitioner moved an application to the effect that his wife, the present revisionist, is of unsound mind, therefore, her medical examination is necessary in the interest of justice. The aforesaid application for medical examination was moved by the non petitioner- husband after he was examined on oath before the Court wherein he has deposed to the effect that the revisionist is of unsound mind. 4. The learned trial Court after giving cogent and convincing reasons allowed the application for medical examination of the revisionist aggrieved against which she has filed this revision. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that unless some prima facie evidence is gathered by the learned trial Court relating to the revisionist's unsound mind, her medical examination cannot be ordered. 6. Indisputably before passing the order impugned for medical examination of the revisionist the learned Additional District Judge No. 1 Hanumangarh, Camp at Sangaria has examined the non petitioner-husband on oath. It is apparent on the face of record that after taking into account the depositions of the non petitioner husband and his averments made in paragraphs No. 4 and 5 in the divorce petition the learned trial Court has passed the order impugned. Thus the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist to the effect that in the present case the learned trial Court has passed the order impugned for medical examination of the revisionist without any prima facie evidence relating to her husband mind is untenable and it is hereby repelled. 7. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error in refusing to rely on the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt v. Madhuriben Bhatt reported in AIR 1963 Gujarat 250 , According to the learned counsel for the revisionist the controversy involved in the present revision is squarely covered by the decision rendered in the case of Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt (supra). 8. 8. Coming to the next contention raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist it is revealed from perusal of the order impugned passed by the learned trial Court that three judgments of different High Courts were cited before it but is respectfully preferred to rely on a decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of G. Venkatanarayana v. Kurupati Laxmi Devi reported in AIR 1985 A.P. 1 , wherein the other two judgments one rendered by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt (supra) and another decision rendered in the case of Smt. Revamma v. Sri Shanthappa reported in AIR 1972 Mysore 157 , were dissented by the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High. Court holding that Section 14 of the Evidence Act does not exclude examination of mental or bodily state of a person. It is further ruled in the case of G. Venkatanarayana (supra) that there is no deprivation of personal liberty or breach of Art. 21 of the Constitution involved in the medical examination of the human body. I respectfully concur with the view taken in the case of G. Venkatanarayana (supra). I have the misfortune to be unable to agree with the erudite opinions of the learned Judges expressed by them in the two decisions rendered in the cases of Bipinchandra Shantilal Bhatt (supra) and Smt. Revamma (supra). Thus I have no hesitation to hold that the learned trial Court in the present case has committed no jurisdictional error in following the conventional rule of precedent in passing the order impugned. The binding nature of judicial decision stems either from constitutional or from statutory provisions or from conventions which the Court observe in the administration of justice. After the enforcement of the Constitution the subordinate Courts are bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as High Courts to which they are judicially subordinate. 9. Before concluding the discussion on the delicate alleged subject of touching personal liberty and breach of Article 21 of the Constitution I would like to add a few lines of my own. 9. Before concluding the discussion on the delicate alleged subject of touching personal liberty and breach of Article 21 of the Constitution I would like to add a few lines of my own. It is to be noticed that Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act makes all facts relevant which go to show a state of mind or state of body or bodily feelings when existence of any such state of mind or body or feelings is in issue in a given case whereas Section 15 of the said Act makes a deduction from the wider provision of Section 14. The object behind enacting Sections 14 & 15 of the Evidence Act is, in my opinion, to prove the existence or non existence of state of mind or state of body or bodily feelings which include within its ambit physical and psychological facts both. 10. The statutory provisions of Section 45 of the Evidence Act further reveal that opinions of experts become relevant when a Court of law is called upon to form a opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions. The expression "Science of Art" used under section 45 of the aforesaid Act includes within its fold all branches of human knowledge requiring special study, experience or training. 11. It is true that expert opinions are not conclusive proof of the facts in issue but its testimonial value is to be accessed by the Courts drawing inference from the data and reasons upon which such scientific opinions are based after giving opportunity to the parties to examine and cross-examine the expert witnesses testing their veracity. An expert has to state his opinion in Court and he must be examined and cross-examined like any other witness. The function of drawing inference from expert's opinion bases on data and reasons is a judicial function which is to be performed by the Courts judiciously in order to determine the truth about existence or non existence of an issue in a given case. The function of drawing inference from expert's opinion bases on data and reasons is a judicial function which is to be performed by the Courts judiciously in order to determine the truth about existence or non existence of an issue in a given case. To my mind suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the revisionist cannot reasonably be expected to live with the non petitioner as envisaged under section 13(i)(iii) and explanations (a) & (b) added to the aforesaid Section of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be proved merely on oral testimony of relationships and behaviour of spouse but it is required to be proved by adducing expert medical opinion. The oral statement of husband and wife other witnesses adduced by them to prove or disprove mental disorder from their behaviour and their relationship to each other provide only preliminary symptoms but these symptoms can be effectively and satisfactorily proved by adducing expert medical opinion and argument contrary to it is not acceptable. It is held that in absence of any prohibition either under the evidence Act or under any other enactment, he/she who filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of mental disorder cannot be debarred to pray for expert medical opinion to prove mental disorder on superficial self-invented plea of violation of personal liberty or breach of Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. The controversy in the present case be viewed from another angle. Section 45 and Section 73 of the Evidence Act are not exclusive but they are supplementary to each other. To achieve a real sense Section 73 of the Evidence Act is to be read in the light of Section 45 of the said Act. 12. The controversy in the present case be viewed from another angle. Section 45 and Section 73 of the Evidence Act are not exclusive but they are supplementary to each other. To achieve a real sense Section 73 of the Evidence Act is to be read in the light of Section 45 of the said Act. Thus the interpretation of the Section 73 of the Evidence Act which provides that the Court may direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare the words or figures so written with any words or figures alleged to have been written by such person must receive light from Section 45 of Evidence Act according to which when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art as to identity of hand writing or finger impression, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law or science or art or in questions as to identity of hand writing or finger impressions are relevant facts. I am of the view that in a divorce petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed on the ground of mental disorder of any party within the meaning of Section 13(i)(iii) and the explanations (a) & (b) added to the aforesaid Section which forms part of sheet-anchor, a Court of law, as a matter of prudence and caution, must refrain itself to base its finding of unsound mind of any party only on oral statements of witnesses without examining an expert medical witness. 13. It is to be imbided that much water has run under the bridge after the interpretation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution r/w Section 73 of the Evidence Act by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathikalu Oghad reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 , wherein it is ruled that a direction by the Courts to give specimen signature or hand writing for the purpose of comparison did not involve testimonial compulsion under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. The interpretation of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution r/w Sections 45 & 73 of the Evidence Act again came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 , wherein it is held that a Court holding an enquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure is entitled to direct an accused person appearing before it is to give specimen, of his hand writing by which it may be tried to be compared with the disputed hand writing.As a result of aforementioned discussion the instant revision lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed in limine.Revision dismissed. *******