Karnataka HC rejects wife's plea for Neurosurgeon evaluation of husband amid divorce case
Bengaluru: Emphasizing that a petition was submitted while her divorce proceeding is ongoing, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the request made by the woman for the establishment of a committee of neurosurgeons to examine her estranged husband, a practising doctor, who she claims suffers from a porencephalic cyst, a condition characterized by a missing portion of the brain.
Describing the petition as 'outrightly misconceived', the division bench, led by Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, upheld the earlier decision of a single judge bench, which had rejected the woman's request on June 4, 2024, and criticized the appeal as an attempt to misuse the judicial process in the context of an ongoing family dispute.
As per a Live Law report, the woman in her plea claimed that they got married on June 18, 1998. She claimed that her husband was diagnosed with a porencephalic cyst (a condition marked by the absence of brain tissue) on June 22, 2004. This diagnosis caused a decline in the relationship between the petitioner and her husband, leading them to seek a divorce in family court, where proceedings were ongoing.
During these proceedings, the petitioner filed a complaint against her husband with the Medical Council. On May 21, 2022, the Council rejected her application. In response, she appealed to the High Court, which overturned the Council's decision and sent the case back to the Council. However, subsequent applications submitted by the petitioner were also denied.
In her appeal, the wife's counsel argued that the expert committee formed by the Karnataka Medical Council (KMC) was not qualified to assess her husband's condition, asserting that only a neurosurgeon could properly evaluate the situation. However, the court found this argument unconvincing, noting that no complaints had been filed by any of the husband's patients over the past 26 years of his medical practice.
The court also expressed scepticism regarding the legal basis of the petitioner's complaint, which was filed under provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Section 151) and the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 479). The judges described the petitioner's actions as "misconceived," emphasizing that the complaint appeared to be an extension of the ongoing matrimonial dispute rather than a legitimate concern for public safety.
“The entire petition clearly smacked that the petitioner was grinding a family dispute as per her own case, to file a complaint and seek prayer against R2 (husband) who is a practising doctor. Petitioner did not file any complaint for 26 years against her husband's practice. At such a stage she brought the petition when divorce proceedings were pending, the prayers made are outrightly misconceived," said the court.
Concluding that the single judge had correctly assessed the case, the division bench dismissed the appeal, reaffirming that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
Also read- Delhi HC orders Baba Ramdev to remove Coronil COVID-19 Cure Claims within 3 Days
