Minor girl being pregnant not want to disturb the same.

Srinivasan, J.

Introduction: The great Tamil Saint said:

“Take not away from any living thing the life that is sweet unto all even if it be to save thine own.”

(Tirukkural - 33-7)

2. But the petitioner has prayed for issue of a direction to the Superintendent Government Kasthuri Bhai Gandhi Hospital, Triplicane, Madras, to terminate the pregnancy of his daughter Sasikala. Thus, he prays for a direction to put an end to a life in the womb of Sasikala on the ground that she is still in her teens and teenage pregnancy will lead to many complications physically, physiologically, mentally and socially. The irony of the matter is Smt.Kasturba Gandhi, after whom the hospital is named was married at the age of 13 and had her first child at the age of 15 and the second child at the age of 17:

.3. Facts: The petitioner filed H.C.P.No. 1450 of 1993 for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent to produce Sasikala, the daughter of the petitioner, aged about 16 and set her at liberty. The second respondent in the petition is the Inspector of Police (Law & Order), K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station. It was alleged in the petition that on 5. 1993, the petitioner’s, daughter left the house stating that she was going to the temple, but did not return home. On enquiries, the petitioner came to know that the first respondent had kidnapped her for the purpose of marrying her and gave a complaint in Aminjikarai Police Station under Sec. 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. The first respondent and the petitioner’s daughter who will be referred to hereafter by her name Sasikala, were taken in custody by the police on 15. 1993 and produced before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore. The first respondent was remanded to judicial custody and Sasikala was sent to Government Orphanage Home, Madras-10. The first respondent was later released on bail on a petition filed by him. The Magistrate set Sasikala free on the ground that she was aged between 20 and 25 years as per the report of the Radiological Officer. A complaint was given by the petitioner’s sister to All Women Police Station Thousand Lights that Sasikala was taken away by the first respondent. The Sub-Inspector refused to take any action. When the petitioner went to the first respondent’s house, he was prevented from seeing his daughter, Hence, he was obliged to move the court for issue of a habeas corpus.

4. It was also alleged in the affidavit that about 500 persons belonging to the place of the first respondent threatened the petitioner at the point of knife and made him to append his signature to a letter consenting to the marriage of the first respondent and Sasikala. It was further stated that Sasikala lost her mother when she was three years old and she was brought up by the petitioner with great care and affection and her life will be ruined if she marries the first respondent, an uneducated, jobless and notorious rowdy element. Admittedly, however, the petitioner had not given any complaint to the police about the alleged extortion of consent letter at the point of knife by 500 persons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, that took place on 15. 1993 when the petitioner gave the complaint under See. 366-A, I.P.C. to the police. But the consent letter signed by the petitioner and produced by the first respondent’s counsel bears the date 5. 1993, the day on which Sasikala left the house.

.5. When the matter came before a Division Bench on 20.9.1993, the court, heard both sides and passed an order that Sasikala is a minor her date of birth being 20.11.1977 and as she is not willing to go with her father the petitioner, she should be kept in Awai Home at Adyar till she attains majority. The petitioner undertook to bear the expenses during her stay at Awai Home. The Bench made it clear that during her stay at Awai Home, the petitioner may be permitted to see his daughter during regular visiting hours: but neither the first respondent nor his parent