Khushi Bajpai
Published on: October 10th, 2022 at 16:57 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that forcing a wife to abort her pregnancy against her will constituted cruelty, highlighting the fact that parenthood is innate, natural, and rewarding to every woman.
With this observation, the Bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta granted the wife’s request for a divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, dissolving the parties’ 2012 marriage by way of a divorce judgment.
The wife was compelled to abort her pregnancy against her choice at her husband’s urging, and afterward, she was unable to conceive again due to gynaecological difficulties, which the court deemed to be cruel. This was noticed by the bench of Justices Bahri and Gupta.
The case in brief
In August 2012, the parties were married according to Hindu customs, and the wife moved in with her husband and his family. She said that her husband and his family members were harassing her relentlessly and demanding more money, torturing her physically, mentally, and emotionally.
She further claimed that although she became pregnant in October 2012, her husband forced her to have the kid aborted on the grounds that he lacked the resources to raise the child. Even after the pregnancy was terminated, she was not given the time to rest that was necessary for recovery, and even though she felt extremely weak, the respondent and his mother made her work.
As a result, the appellant experienced gynecological issues that prevented her from becoming pregnant again.
She also talked about certain instances in her marital home that gave her mental pain. Finally, she was kicked out of the marital residence in 2015. As a result, she filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court in Hisar, which was later dismissed.
She claimed that she had been subjected to cruel treatment and that her husband had abandoned her. She went to the High Court to contest the same.
High Court’s Observations
The court noted right away that the medical records provided by the wife’s visit to the fertility centers in 2014, where she received treatment because she “wanted to conceive,” provided strong support for her claims that she was unable to conceive because of gynecological complications that developed after being forced to terminate the pregnancy.
The court further noted that she had brought those charges before the family court as well, but the husband’s denial of the extremely severe allegations was flimsy and general in nature, lacking in specificity.
Consequently, the Court allowed the wife’s appeal and granted the divorce petition she had submitted in accordance with Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, taking into consideration the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558.