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

Unmarried woman having Consensual Sex - Terminate 20 Weeks Pregnancy Not Allowed: Delhi HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


D.D:15-07-2022

The Delhi High Court denied a 25-year-old unwed woman's request to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.

According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (MTP Rules), an unmarried woman who is carrying a child from a consensual sexual relationship is not permitted to terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks. A division bench composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad denied the relief "Clearly, none of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 apply to the Petitioner, who is unmarried and whose pregnancy results from a consensual relationship. Consequently, Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is inapplicable to this case "stated the Court in its order.

It added that, as of today, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules remains in effect and prohibits the termination of a nonmarital woman's pregnancy after 20 weeks, so the Court cannot exceed the statute.

"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 remains in effect, and this Court, in exercising its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot exceed the statute. Providing interim relief at this time would be equivalent to granting the writ petition itself "it said.

However, the court kept the petition pending and notified Delhi's Health and Family Welfare Department that it must file a response to the petition by August 26.

Notice is limited to the petition's prayer to include unmarried women within the scope of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, according to the court.

According to the Rules, only rape victims, minors, women whose marital status changed during pregnancy, mentally ill women, and women with a malformed foetus may terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks.

During yesterday's (Friday) hearing of the same petition, the judges remarked that an abortion at this stage would be tantamount to murder.

The judge recommended that the child be placed for adoption.

"Why do you murder the child? "There is a lengthy waiting list for child adoption," the Chief Justice stated.

It was also stated that the woman is not required to raise the child and that the government or hospital will take care of everything.

"I am willing to pay," stated the Chief Justice.

The judge had also sought the opinion of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was present in the courtroom.

According to Sibal, the child should not be aborted at this point.

However, the woman's attorney informed the court that the continuation of her pregnancy will negatively affect her physical and mental health.

The judges then instructed the attorney to obtain instructions from the petitioner and scheduled the case to be heard after lunch.

After speaking with the petitioner, the attorney informed the court that she is unwilling to continue carrying the pregnancy to term.

The bench stated, however, that the law prohibits killing the child.

MS. X

Versus

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

Download Judgment

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/15-07-2022-Ms_X_v_Health_and_Family_Welfare_Department_GNCTD.pdf"]

Latest Legal News