Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rakesh Kumar Jain, J., refused to grant permission to terminate pregnancy of a 14-year minor girl.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner was father of a minor girl of 14 years of age who was raped and an FIR was filed against the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 376(3) and 506 of Penal Code. As soon as pregnancy of the minor came into light the petitioner approached the Court for termination of 28 weeks pregnancy in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 wherein permission of Court is required if the pregnancy is of more than 20 weeks. Question before Court was whether if pregnancy of the minor is terminated, there would be danger to life of minor or not. Director, PGIMS Rohtak gave opinion according to which if pregnancy is terminated, there could be grave risk to minor’s life. Accordingly, Court in the instant petition refused to permit termination of pregnancy. Petitioner asked for directions in light of the case of Shewata v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 20442 wherein termination of pregnancy of a girl was rejected but directions were given by Court for the welfare of the girl.

The High Court, therefore, issued directions to the Director, PGIMS Rohtak for the welfare of the minor. Some of the important directions are given here for reference.

  • Direction to admit minor as an indoor patient with a private room.
  • Minor was to be given medicines, food, clothes and other facility and during delivery, minor should be personally monitored by the Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
  • Authorities of Medical College to ensure privacy and non-discloser of her name to the public.

With the above directions, the petition was disposed of by the Court. [Sikander v. State of Haryana, CWP No.21291 of 2018, decided on 28-08-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Valmiki Mehta, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC  against the judgment of the trial court whereby appellant’s suit for possession and mesne profits was dismissed.

The suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the appellant being only one of the co-owners, could not claim possession in absence of support from other co-owners. It was held that a  single landlord could not terminate the tenancy. Aggrieved thus, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.

The High Court relied on Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, (1996) 6 SCC 373 and Jagdish Dutt v. Dharam Pal, (1999) 3 SCC 644 to hold that one co-owner/co-landlord is not entitled on his own, in the face of opposition from other co-owners/co-landlords, to terminate the tenancy for seeking possession of the tenanted property and/or mesne profits. In the present case, the other co-owners had infact opposed the termination of tenancy as well as the suit filed by the appellant. Observing that the appeal was completely frivolous, the High Court held that the suit was rightly dismissed by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. [Navin Chander Anand v. Union Bank of India,2018 SCC OnLine Del 9902, 17-07-2018]