Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Ss. 3,4 & 5 – Termination of certain pregnancy by the registered medical practitioner – When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners – Place where pregnancy may be terminated.
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 956 OF 2018
“ABC” .. Petitioner Through her Guardian Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai32. 2. Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Latur. Mr.Sujit A. Patil h/f. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for respondent/State.
J U D G M E N T
[PER : S.M.GAVHANE,J.] :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties.
2. The minor victim girl who is physically abused and mentally tortured has approached this Court through her father – the guardian for seeking directions in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby directing to terminate her pregnancy by following the procedure as described under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred as to “the MTP Act”] and further directions to conduct DNA test of unborn foetus, so as to determine natural parents of it.
3. The guardian father of the victim contends that he has four daughters and one son. The victim is minor daughter aged about 16 years. She is studying in 10th standard. As per her bona fide certificate issued by the school, her date of birth is 05.01.2001. It is further contended that his elder daughter has married on 06.01.2013 with one Vikas Rathod and he is not maintaining his wife. Vikas drove his wife out of his house. Therefore, she is residing with the petitioner. Some complaints were filed against the matrimonial family members of elder daughter of the petitioner and therefore there was grudge in the mind of that family.
4. According to the petitioner on 27.11.2017 when victim went in the morning to answer the nature’s call outside the house, she did not return. The petitioner tried to search her. However, he could not find her. The petitioner suspected that his soninlaw Vikas and his family, who had grudge in the mind, must have kidnapped the victim to pressurize the petitioner for not filing any complaint. When the petitioner could not find the victim, he lodged the First Information Report in Kingaon Police Station bearing No.144 of 2017 on 30.11.2017 under section 363 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the said crime was registered, the soninlaw of the petitioner brought the victim in the police station on 04.12.2017. At that time, statement of the victim was recorded wherein she did not allege any overtact on the part of Vikas and she refused for any medical examination. On this count, she was remanded in Child Rehabilitation Home at Latur. In the said Home, statement of the victim under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded on 11.12.2017 by the PSI attached to Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Latur, in which she narrated the entire incident and made accusation against Vikas Rathod of committing rape by threatening her to her life, and against him and his father of inserting some substance in her mouth and of putting a handkerchief in her mouth. Thereafter, offence punishable under section 376 of the IPC was added in the above said crime.
5. The petitioner contends that after recording statement as above of the victim, she was referred on 20.12.2017 to the Government Hospital, Latur for medical examination. Upon medical examination, it was found that she is carrying two months’ pregnancy. Thereafter, the accused and his relatives threatened the complainant for dire consequences, if he does not take case back. Therefore, applications were submitted in the police station.