The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed a father to decide whether his daughter’s partner would like to marry him before passing an order on her request for termination of pregnancy (MTP).
The father, 66, wanted an abortion for his adopted daughter, 27, who was more than 20 weeks pregnant and refused to consent to the abortion.
Earlier in this case, a bench of Justice RV Ghuge and RS Patil had ordered that the woman be examined by a medical board. On Wednesday, Additional Public Prosecutor Prachi Tatake presented the report in the court.
After reviewing the report, the bench observed that both the mother and fetus are healthy. The report also stated that the woman had “limited intellectual activity.” The bench raised concerns, asking, “Does the functioning of borderline intellectual mean mental disorder? There is a procedure to declare that a person is mentally ill and then a guardian is appointed. Here that procedure is not done. He is not reported as a mentally ill person.”
The judges went on to ask, “Because she has low intelligence, doesn’t she have the right to be a mother?”
During the proceedings, Advocate SK Dubey, representing the father, informed the court that after filing the petition, the woman disclosed the name of her partner and stated that she wanted to marry him. The court then orders the parents to investigate whether the marriage is possible.
The bench said, “Can the parents take action to talk to this man? What you said is that she wants to marry a man. It is not a crime. She is 27 years old. She should be free, not panic.”
The applicant, who adopted the woman in 1998 when she was a few months old, had argued that she suffered from a number of mental health problems, including borderline personality disorder and depression. He also said that he was violent and needed medication regularly. The father also revealed that he started having sex at the age of 13 or 14 and often went out at night without identifying himself.
The father said he found out about his daughter’s pregnancy on November 26 when he went for a check-up and cited financial problems and his old age as reasons for not being able to support the child.
The bench answered and said, “Parents must do their job. You took her when she was five months old. Now you know that the child grew up with you.”
The court will hear the case again on January 13.