1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the Court of Munsiff, Kangan, whereunder petitioner (defendant) has been directed to be examined by the Medical Board to be constituted by the Chief Medical Officer so as to ascertain as to whether petitioner (defendant) is potent or not. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner under any circumstances cannot be ordered to subject himself to the medical test for being ascertained his position of potency. It is projected that subjecting the petitioner to medical examination violates his right of privacy so offends Article 21 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred to the judgment captioned Ghulam Mohammad Khan v. Mst. Hasina passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 120/86, reported in SLJ 1988 J&K 103, wherein it has been held as under:- "The trial court has no jurisdiction or power under law, even u/s 151 CPC to order the petitioner to submit to medical examination. The learned trial court has committed an error by ordering the petitioner to subject to the medical examination." 3. It has been further held that since the petitioner has been examined by the Board, the, trial court is at liberty to act upon the medical evidence available on record and decide the issue of potency of the petitioner on the evidence led by the party on whom onus has been laid. 4. In opposition, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court captioned Sharda v. Dharampal ( AIR 2003 SC 3450 ), has supported the order impugned. It is the further contention of learned counsel that the respondent (wife) has sought divorce on the count of petitioner (husband) being impotent. There is no other way or method to prove such fact and if the method adopted is not permitted, then the respondent will remain confined in the nuptial knot as tied with the petitioner which would mean that the respondent shall have to suffer all along which, if permitted, will be travesty of justice. 5. There is no other way or method to prove such fact and if the method adopted is not permitted, then the respondent will remain confined in the nuptial knot as tied with the petitioner which would mean that the respondent shall have to suffer all along which, if permitted, will be travesty of justice. 5. Basically parties are married to each other eight years back, during this period no child could be procured, resultantly petitioner has adopted cruel and hostile attitude which constrained the respondent (plaintiff) to institute the suit for dissolution of marriage and the learned trial court has framed four issues which are reproduced here-under:- 1) Whether the defendant has been cruel and hostile towards the plaintiff from the very date of marriage for the reason that the defendant was impotent at the time of marriage? (OPP) 2) Whether the father of the defendant has admitted the truth about the impotency of his son and assured of medical treatment for his son but subsequently the defect was not cured ?(OPP) 3) Whether the plaintiff in order to marry some other person of her choice had leveled false allegations against the defendant and has also undergone abortion? (OPD) 4) The relief the parties are entitled to? 6. Essentially the whole controversy revolves round the question of impotency of the petitioner. Now the question for consideration is as to whether at the behest of respondent, petitioner could be ordered to be subjected to medical examination by the Medical Board. The answer in the peculiar facts of the case has to be in affirmative otherwise it shall be difficult for the respondent (plaintiff) to prove the impotency of the petitioner (defendant). The question of invasion to privacy is permissible. The answer is available in para 80 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2003 SC 3450 . Same is quoted here-under:- "80. The matter may be considered from another angle. In all such matri­monial cases where divorce is sought, say on the ground of impotency, schizophrenia... etc. normally without there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation made by his spouse against the other spouse seeking divorce on such a ground, is correct or not. In order to substantiate such allegation, the petitioner would always insist on medical examination. etc. normally without there being medical examination, it would be difficult to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the allegation made by his spouse against the other spouse seeking divorce on such a ground, is correct or not. In order to substantiate such allegation, the petitioner would always insist on medical examination. If respondent avoids such medical examination on the ground that it violates his/her right to privacy or for a matter right to personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, then it may in most of such cases become impossible to arrive at a conclusion. It may render the very grounds on which divorce is permissible nugatory. Therefore, when there is no right to privacy specifically conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and with the extensive interpretation, of the phrase "personal liberty" this right has been read into Article 21, it cannot be treated as absolute right. What is emphasized is that some limitations on this right have to be imposed and particularly where two competing interests clash. In matters of aforesaid nature where the legislature has conferred a right upon his spouse to seek divorce on such grounds. It would be the right of that spouse which comes in conflict with the so-called right to privacy of the respon­dent. Thus the Court has to feconcile these competing interests by balancing the interests involved." 7. Now again question is as to whether in case of default on the part of petitioner in subjecting himself to the medical examination, adverse inference can be drawn. Same is answered by para 83 of the said judgment which reads as under;- "83. If despite an order passed by the Court, a person refuses to submit himself to such medical examination, a strong case for drawing an adverse inference would be made out. S. 114 of the Indian Evidence Act also enables a Court to draw an adverse inference if the party does not produce the relevant evidences in his power and possession." 8. More or less similar controversy has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally conclusions have been drawn. In this connection para 85 is relevant to be quoted: "To sum up, our conclusions are- 1. A matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test. 2. More or less similar controversy has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court and finally conclusions have been drawn. In this connection para 85 is relevant to be quoted: "To sum up, our conclusions are- 1. A matrimonial court has the power to order a person to undergo medical test. 2. Passing of such an order by the court would not be in violation of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 3. However the Court should exercise such a power if the applicant has a strong prima facie case and there is sufficient material before the Court. If despite the order of the court, the respondent refuses to submit himself to medical examination, the court will be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him." 9. While considering the instant case on the touch stone of the principles as laid down, strong prima case exist which warrant the direction for medical examination of the petitioner (defendant) by the Medical Board. 10. In the light of aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the order impugned in the background of its own facts and features, no illegality or irregularity is noticed nor stitch order is to result in causing miscar­riage of justice. Furthermore, in any case right to privacy is not offended so as to attract the immunity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 11. Revision petition being without merit is dismissed. 12. Copy of the judgment be send to the trial court for information.