A marriage may begin with love, trust and family celebrations, but what happens when a serious health issue that could materially affect married life is discovered only after the wedding?
Consider a disturbing matrimonial dispute in which a wife alleged that her husband suffered from erectile dysfunction and, instead of addressing the medical problem, allegedly asked her to have a sexual relationship with his friend so that they could have a child. Whether every allegation in such cases is ultimately proved is a matter for the court. But such disputes raise a larger question put forward by Advocate Anik, with 18 years of experience: should couples be mandatorily required to take appropriate health screening before marriage? he replies that :- The issue is not about judging a person’s health, fertility or sexual capability. It is about informed consent.
Indian courts have repeatedly encountered matrimonial disputes involving infertility, impotency, mental health and concealment of medical conditions. In Deep Mukerjee v. Sreyashi Banerjee, the Supreme Court considered a matrimonial dispute involving alleged non-consummation due to the husband’s impotency and upheld, to that extent, a direction requiring the husband to undergo a medical potentiality test. – primelegal.in
In another recent development, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld a divorce where the court found that concealment of a significant medical condition affecting matrimonial life and the prospect of childbirth amounted to mental cruelty. The case is important not because every medical condition should become a ground for divorce, but because it demonstrates the consequences that may follow when material health information is allegedly withheld before marriage.
The problem is wider than infertility. A recent study of women experiencing delayed conception in North India found that 17.1% reported emotional abuse from their partners and 2% reported divorce; among women reporting pressure from other family members over delayed conception, 48.9% reported emotional abuse and 2.7% reported divorce. These figures do not establish that infertility causes divorce, but they demonstrate how reproductive health can become a source of significant marital and family conflict.
Advocate Anik says that, India also lacks comprehensive national statistics showing how many divorces are directly attributable to medical conditions. That statistical gap itself deserves attention. A study of 100 couples seeking divorce in a Mumbai family court found interpersonal problems to be the most common reported reason, at 34%, while sexual dissatisfaction and psychiatric illness each accounted for 5% of the recorded reasons. The study also found significant psychological distress among many participants.
Further Advocate Anik states that, The law therefore faces a difficult balance. On one side is the individual’s fundamental right to privacy, bodily autonomy and medical confidentiality. A person should not be forced to disclose every medical detail merely because they intend to marry. A mandatory medical regime must never become a tool for discrimination against persons with disabilities, chronic illnesses, mental-health conditions, infertility or other health conditions.
On the other side is the principle of informed consent. If a person knowingly conceals a serious condition that substantially affects sexual relations, reproduction or the fundamental expectations of matrimonial life, the other prospective spouse may enter the marriage without information that could materially influence the decision to marry.
The answer may lie not in a compulsory “fitness certificate” for marriage, but in a carefully designedPre-Marital Health Disclosure and Screening Framework.
Such a framework could include voluntary or mandatory counselling, screening for communicable diseases, reproductive-health assessment where both parties consent, and a confidential declaration of material medical conditions. The objective should be awareness rather than exclusion.
The government could also consider a standard marriage-health checklist covering sexual health, reproductive health, hereditary conditions, major chronic illnesses, mental-health history, and communicable diseases. Sensitive information should remain confidential and be disclosed only to the prospective spouse with informed consent.
Recent cases demonstrate why such reform deserves serious public debate. At one end are cases involving alleged concealment of medical conditions; at the other are cases where courts have protected individuals from casual or unjustified medical examination. The Bombay High Court, for example, recently cautioned that medical or psychiatric examinations in matrimonial proceedings cannot be ordered casually and require proper judicial reasoning and evidence.
The purpose of pre-marital screening, therefore, should not be to declare someone “fit” or “unfit” for marriage. Marriage is not a medical examination. But marriage is a legal and personal commitment built on trust. The law should help ensure that such trust begins with honesty.
