Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Family LawSupreme Court of India

Deep Mukerjee vs. Sreyashi Banerjee

Not available · 2024 INSC 274Decided 5 Apr 2024
Not available
Justice Vikram Nath · Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Background

A husband and wife married in 2013, lived together happily in the UK for over seven years, and later separated in 2021 after disputes arose. The husband filed for restitution of conjugal rights, while the wife filed for divorce alleging the marriage was never consummated due to the husband's impotency. The husband then sought a trial court order requiring himself to undergo a potency test and the wife to undergo fertility and psychological tests; the trial court allowed this, but the High Court set aside that order on revision by the wife.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had not given cogent reasons for refusing the potency test and had wrongly focused on the parties' conduct rather than the merits of the applications. Since the husband himself was willing to undergo the potency test, the Court found no reason to deny it. The Court partly allowed the appeals, restoring the trial court's order only to the extent of directing the husband to undergo the potency test within four weeks, with the report to follow within two weeks thereafter.

Lesson Learnt

In matrimonial disputes involving allegations of impotency or non-consummation, courts can permit relevant medical testing when a party voluntarily agrees to undergo it, and appellate courts must give substantive reasons tied to the merits rather than deciding such applications based on the parties' general conduct.

Deep Mukerjee vs. Sreyashi Banerjee – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware