SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

ON THE 27th OF OCTOBER, 2022

CONC No. 415 OF 2022

Between:-

SUO MOTO IN THE MATTER OF THE

STATE OF M.P.

….....APPELLANT

(BY SHRI A.K. NIRANKARI - GOVT.

ADVOCATE)

AND

1.

FATHER OF PROSECUTRIX

“A”, SON OF GARIBDAS, RESIDENT

OF VILLAGE BIDNIYA, P.S. CIVIL

LINES, DATIA.

2.

PROSECUTRIX “X”, D/O “A”,

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIDNIYA,

P.S. CIVIL LINES, DATIA.

3.

AJMER YADAV SON OF

DWARIKA

PRASAD

YADV,

RESIDENT

OF

VILLAAGE

BIDANIYA, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTT.

DATIA.

4.

SANTOSH PARIHAR, SON OF

RAGUNATH,

RESIDENT

OF

VILLAGE REDA, P.S. DEHAT,

TAHSIL AND DISTT. DATIA.

5.

SONU PARIHAR @ NATHU

PARIHAR, SON OF MAHENDRA

SINGH PARIHAR, RESIDENT OF

2

VILLAGE BICHHONDANA, TEHSIL

BHANDER, P.S. CIVIL LINES,

DATIA.

6.

AJAY KANT SHRIVASTAVA,

SON OF LATE N.R. SHRIVASTAVA,

RESIDENT OF TIGALIA DAROGA

WALI GALI, DISTT. DATIA

7.

P.K. GARG, D.P.O., AT

PRESENT D.P.O., S.P.E. LOKAYUKT,

BHOPAL.

8.

DEVENDRA

SHRIVASTAVA,

SON

OF

LAXMINARAYAN

SHRIVASTAVA,

RESIDENT

OF

MUDIAN KA KUA, WARD NO. 28,

DATIA.

9.

ADITYA KHARE, SON OF R.S.

KHARE, RESIDENT OF THANDI

SADAK, DATIA.

10.

ANIL AWASTHY, SON OF R.B.

AWASTHI, R/O BADE BAZAR,

DATIA.

11.

MEHMOOD KHAN, SON OF

LATE SHRI MUNABBAR KHAN,

RESIDENT

OF

GHOSIPURA,

GWALIOR.

......RESPONDENTS

(SMT. KALPANA PARMAR, ADVOCATE

FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2)

(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

(SHRI SUNIL DUBEY, ADVOCATE FOR

RESPONDENT NO.4)

(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 5)

(SHRI RAJIV SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR

RESPONDENT NO. 6 AND 11)

(SHRI RAJIV BUDHOLIYA, ADVOCATE

FOR RESPONDENT NO. 7)

(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.8)

3

(SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE

FOR RESPONDENT NO. 9)

(SHRI

SAURABH

BHELSELWALE,

ADVOCATE, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 10).

__________________________________________________________

Heard on

: 17th-October-2022

Delivered on

:

__________________________________________________________

This Contempt Petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, passed the following:

Advocates:
Advocate General,

1.

This Contempt Petition has been registered on suo moto exercise

of power by this Court by order dated 10-2-2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No.

7380 of 2022 (Sonu Parihar @ Nathu Vs. State of M.P.).

2.

This case shows a very sorry state of affairs, where some people in

order to get rid of unwarranted pregnancy due to voluntary relationship

with a close relative, have misused the lawful authority of this Court, by

adopting a very innovative method. It is a very high time to put a check

on this type of tendency, because the purpose of Medical termination of

Pregnancy Act, 1971 is to provide for the termination of certain

pregnancies by registered medical practitioners and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto. Only specific pregnancies are to be

permitted to be ended by licensed medical professionals. The primary

objectives of the Act are also to reduce the death rate of women from

unsafe and illegal abortions and to optimize the maternal health of Indian

women. Only after this legislation, women are entitled to have safe

abortions, but only under specific circumstances. However, the lawful

authority of High Court cannot be permitted to be misused to terminate

4

the unwarranted pregnancy by hiding the identity of the biological father

of the child. Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

deals with a situation under which the pregnancy can be terminated by a

Medical Practitioner, which reads as under :

3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered

medical practitioners.—(1) Notwithstanding anything

contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered

medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under

that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if

any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the

provisions of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy

may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,—

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty

weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks

but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category

of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if

not less than two registered medical practitioners are,

of the opinion, formed in good faith, that—

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the

life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or

mental health; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it

would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.

Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (a), where any

pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method

used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting

the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish

caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a

grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b), where

any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been

caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be

presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of

the pregnant woman.

5

(2-A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner whose

opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at different

gestational age shall be such as may be prescribed by rules

made under this Act.

(2-B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of

the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of pregnancy

by the medical practitioner where such termination is

necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal

abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.

(2-C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case

may be, shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute

a Board to be called a Medical Board for the purposes of this

Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be

prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(2-D) The Medical Bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top