In a bench presided over by the Honorable Justice Devan Ramachandran, the High Court of Kerala concurred with the Medical Board's determination that the pregnancy has progressed to an advanced stage, reaching 30 weeks of gestation with a well-maintained fetal heart rate. Consequently, the termination of the pregnancy was deemed impossible and legally untenable.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The Petitioner, a 14-year-old mother, requests medical termination of her pregnancy as a result of rape by the accused, who is now in detention under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act of 2012, which has caused serious mental trauma and stress.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner's counsel, Smt.M.Kabani Dinesh, contended that the pregnancy was the consequence of rape on her client's kid, and so she is entitled to the protection of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Government Pleader informed that the Court has taken all necessary steps to guarantee that the kid is returned to her home, in the presence of her parents, to finish her pregnancy and deliver the child without mental strain or stress. The victim's kid will be returned to her family, and every effort will be made to keep her safe. Respondents are willing to follow any additional instructions imposed by the court.
Observations of the Court:
The Accused has been charged with violating the 'POCSO Act' and is being held in jail. However, documents show that the victim child was not coerced, but because the youngster is still young, the occurrence is classified as statutory rape. The Court says this because the pregnancy has progressed, and the Medical Board says the uterus corresponds to 30 weeks of gestation with satisfactory foetal health. At this point, this is an uncommon twist.
The Decision of the Court:
The Writ Petition is dismissed, but the jurisdictional Child Protection Officer is directed to visit the victim child regularly and give pregnancy and delivery support. The Officer will also contact medical personnel and may file a clarification petition with the Court. The Petitioner and her daughter may approach the appropriate Court under the Juvenile Justice Act or other applicable statutes, and the Child Protection Officer will aid and counsel them.
Case Title: XXX vs. Union of India and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case No.: WP(C) NO. 38593 OF 2023
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. M.Kabani Dinesh, Adv. C.Anchala
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Vidya Kuriakose
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments