[ad_1]
After rejecting a 17-year-old rape survivor’s petition to terminate her pregnancy, the Gujarat High Court on Monday was told that she will spend the remaining part of her pregnancy in a women’s shelter in Rajkot.
The survivor had taken to the Supreme Court earlier this month to request the termination of her pregnancy. The Court of Justice, Sameer Dave, had made it clear earlier that it would not issue orders to abort the fetus after ensuring that there were no abnormalities in the pregnancy of the minor rape survivor, who lasted nearly 30 weeks.
On Monday, Justice Dev took up the matter in his chambers and, in an order published later in the evening, recorded that the surviving girl and her father had decided that she would remain in Rajkot’s Nari Sanrakshan Groh, working under the State Government’s Department of Women and Child Welfare Secretary, until her delivery.
However, the court did not rule on the case and kept it pending “to consider the nature of the matter”. Meanwhile, the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment has been instructed to submit progress reports before the court “from time to time”.
According to petitioner Sikander Saeed’s lawyer, the survivor was given two options — either continue her pregnancy at her home or move to a state-run facility — during the final proceedings in the room when the judge met the rape-accused slapped with POCSO charges and the survivor’s father to explore “the possibility of a compromise.” .
Citing the medical experts’ report, Judge Dave’s order ruled that no abnormalities were detected in the girl’s physical and mental condition, and that “if the court ultimately orders a medical termination of the pregnancy at 29 weeks and 5 days of gestational age, the newborn will suffer.” Prematurity and its complications.
Judge Dave’s order also directed the state government “to pay compensation to the girl victim of rape in accordance with the prevailing policies of the state government under the various provisions, if she deserves it, as soon as possible.”
In an earlier hearing in this case, Judge Dave suggested that the petitioner’s counsel had “read Manusmriti” and noted that girls could have already had their first child at the age of 17 before the 21st century. Judge Dave also noted that a few months of age under 18 should not matter and stated that he would not allow termination if the minor and fetus were medically found to be healthy.
[ad_2]
