SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Court Allowed Termination Of 28 Weeks Pregnancy of Minor Rape Victim: Madras HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In response to a petition by the girl's father, the Madras High Court recently allowed the termination of a 13-year-old rape victim's 28 week + three-day Pregnancy.

Even though the pregnancy had exceeded the legal limit of 20 weeks, Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that she was a small girl who lacked the mental and physical strength to withstand the pregnancy. In addition, the court noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner in this case, was an agricultural labourer, and that if the pregnancy was permitted to continue, not only the victim girl, but the entire family would suffer.

This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the petitioner is an agricultural labourer who lives hand-to-mouth. Clearly, he falls below the federal poverty line. If the minor victim girl is permitted to give birth, not only will she and her parents suffer, but so will the perpetrator.

The court also cited precedents in which the Supreme Court had permitted termination of pregnancies even after 20 weeks of gestation. In A v. Union of India (2018, 4 SCC 75), the Supreme Court authorised an abortion when the gestational age was between 25 and 26 weeks. In Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 1092, the court permitted the termination of a 13-year-pregnancy. old's Similarly, in Meera Santosh Pal vs. Union of India, 2017 3 SCC 462, permission for a medical termination of pregnancy was granted after 24 weeks of pregnancy, based on medical reports indicating the risk associated with continuing the pregnancy. In reliance on these precedents, the court made the following observation: It is evident from the preceding decisions that this Court has the authority to order the termination of the victim girl's pregnancy if her physical or mental health is in grave jeopardy.

In the present case, the court heard from the Directorate of Family Welfare's Joint Director (MTP) and Deputy Director (Inspection), who argued that the girl's pregnancy could be terminated. They also argued that the rape victim is mentally fragile and unable to give birth at such a young age. The Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Government Thiruvannamalai Medical College Hospital confirmed the same.

The court also noted that it had greater authority under Article 226 of the Constitution than under Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, which permits a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy only if it does not exceed twenty weeks.

Invoking this authority, the court ordered the state to appoint a team of specialised physicians who will terminate the pregnancy. The court also ordered the respondent-state to preserve the foetus after termination in order to conduct a medical examination for the purposes of a pending criminal case under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The Child Welfare Committee was also instructed to provide all possible support to the victim and her parents during their hospital stay.

D.D:15-07-2022

K Vijayakumar Versus. State of Tamil Nadu

Latest Legal News