Skip to main content

Pregnancy from rape - terminate without prior permission of court

Allowing the plea of the petitioner (minor appearing through her guardian) wanting to medically terminate her pregnancy that resulted due to rape being committed upon her, the Court directed the District Medical Officer, Hisar to constitute a committee of 2 doctors to examine her and get her pregnancy terminated if she is in the right state of health. The Court referring an earlier case on this point reiterated the directions stating that in case where a rape victim irrespective of the fact that whether she is major or minor, if found pregnant and does not want to retain the foetus, then such pregnancy must be treated as involving grave mental injury and medical assistance shall be provided and the feasibility of terminating such pregnancy shall be considered.

In the instant case the victim’s request to medically terminate her pregnancy was rejected by the Court of JMIC, Hisar on the grounds that there is no legal provision to entertain such application. The petitioner was represented by P.K. Chugh.

Commenting upon the refusal by JMIC, the Court stated that in cases similar to the present case the victim should not be harassed by asking her to take permission from the courts as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not lay down such a procedure. The Court further observed that if a plea of termination of pregnancy by a rape victim is made then it should be dealt with utmost sensitivity. [Vijender v. State of Haryana, CWP No.20783 of 2014, decided on 07.10.2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more