WP/9088/2020 of BHAGYASHREE SOMGIRI GIRI Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2020

1. On 29[th] December, 2020, we had passed the following order :

“1.Leave to correct the name of the petitioner so as tomention the biological guardian of the victim. So also,the description of Respondent No.2 shall be corrected.Corrections be carried out forthwith.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on31.12.2020. Learned AGP waives service for RespondentNos.1 & 2.

3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking

9088.20wp

permission to carry out medical termination of herpregnancy. She has lodged an FIR on 8.12.2020, statingtherein that the accused has committed an offencepunishable under sections 376(2)(f) read with section 506of the IPC and Sections 4,8 and 12 of The POCSO Act.

4. The petitioner has not stated the exact gestationalage of her pregnancy in the petition. So also, thepetitioner has not referred to any provisions of TheTermination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Prayer clauses arealso ambiguous.

5. We find that the petitioner is before this Court forseeking permission to resort to medical termination of herpregnancy in view of Section 3 of the said 1971 Act.

6. We deem it appropriate to direct Respondent No.2to carry out a medical examination of the victim byconstituting a Board. Such examination shall be carriedout on 30.12.2020 at 12.00 noon. The victim shall remainpresent for such medical examination and is permitted tobe accompanied by either of the biological parent.Respondent No.2 shall submit the medical report, eitherthrough e-mail to the learned Registrar (Judicial) of thisCourt or a hard copy in a sealed envelope, by 10.30 am on31.12.2020. Needless to state, the board shall express it’s

9088.20wp

opinion as to whether termination of pregnancy is necessitated and whether the probable mother is at anyrisk while undergoing such procedure.

7. List this petition in the urgent admissions categoryon 31.12.2020.”

2. Today, the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology hastendered a report dated 30[th] December, 2020, which is prepared by theMedical Board constituted for considering the case of the petitioner formedical termination of pregnancy. We have taken the said report (twopages) on record, which is marked as ‘X’ collectively foridentification. The Medical Board comprising of seven seniorDoctors, have submitted their opinion at Clause no.16, which reads asunder :

“16.Recommendations by Medical Board for termination: Not Recommended: Not Recommended As Foetus has attained period of viability. If terminated it will result in live birth and will face serious morbiditiesdue to prematurity.

Such cases can be safely delivered in hospital at term andhanded over to child welfare committee.

Date and time : 30/12/2020. AT 2:30 PM”.

3. At Sr.No.13, the Medical Board has stated on investigation thatthe woman/the victim carries “Single live intrauterine gestation withaverage gestational age 28 weeks 6 days” as on 30[th] December, 2020.As such, today the victim has completed 29 gestational weeks andaccording to the medical report, the foetus has attained the period ofviability. If terminated, it will result in live birth.

4. permission for medical termination of her pregnancy.

In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to refuse

5. As such, this petition is rejected.

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

sjk