The single judge bench of Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Mrs X vs State of Haryana & Ors granted permission to a minor rape victim to terminate her pregnancy.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the writ petition is filed directing the respondents to terminate the pregnancy of victim “X” daughter of the petitioner in view of the provision of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the minor victim “X” has filed the present petition through her natural guardian- her father. It was submitted that the petitioner was subjected to rape due to which she got pregnant. Even, the FIR is registered under sections 363, 366-A, 376, 450 and 34 of the IPC and Section 4 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. Further, it was submitted that due to her age, the petitioner's continued pregnancy would put her in grave medical and psychological danger. She further argues that because of her dependence on others, she would be unable to care for the child if it were to be born. It was further contended that since the pregnancy is more than 24 weeks old, the petitioner is bound to approach this court for seeking termination of pregnancy in accordance with the statutory mandate.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court relied upon the judgement titled X versus Union of India. The high court held that it is not in dispute that the victim is a minor even as on date and is dependant on her family. She is yet to complete her education and pursue her goals in life. It can also not be lost sight of the fact that the pregnancy is an outcome of violation of the minor. It is a testimony to her bruised body and soul. The child, if born, is not a reminder of good memories, but shall be a reminder of trauma and agony she had to undergo. As an unwanted child, the member is also likely to either live a tormenting life filled up with taunts to his origin or only to be given away. In either of the said situation, the mother as well as the child suffer social stigma and incarceration for rest of their lives. The same is not in the best interest of either the mother and her family already having expressed their unwillingness to bring up the child, it may not even be advancing the cause of the unborn, who will grapple to come to terms with life and be subjected to maltreatment for no fault. Such decision are tough, however life is not just about being able to breathe-it is about being able to live with dignity. Where the denial of dignity and social as well as family acceptance or approval is a writing on the wall, it compounds agony of the child and lead to greater injustice. Balance thus needs to be drawn to examine the over all well being. Whether to shape the trauma of a victim or to prolong it by delivery of the child, who is to be only victimized. The choices thus reduce and it seems more prudent to allow the termination of pregnancy.
CASE NAME- Mrs X vs State of Haryana & Ors
CITATION- CWP-25508-2022
CORUM- Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj
DATE- 21.11.22
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments