X Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner, who is seeking termination of her pregnancy on account of a matrimonial dispute which has arisen with her husband, the respondent no.4 herein, and an FIR at Crime No.875/2024 on 5/11/2024 has also been lodged by her under Ss. 85,296,115(2),3(5) and 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 alleging cruelty by her husband/Kuldeep Bhadoria the respondent no.4 herein and his family members.

(2.) On 27/11/2024, when the matter came up for hearing before this Court, this Court directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer District Hospital Dewas to ascertain if the pregnancy of the petitioner can be terminated, and on 4/12/2024, it was informed by the counsel for the respondent State that as per the medical board the petitioner is fit for termination of pregnancy. On the said date, respondent no.4 also appeared before this Court and this Court referred the matter for mediation to Ms. Archana Maheshwari, mediator to explore the possibility of the settlement between the parties. However, as per thereport dtd. 7/12/2024, submitted by Ms. Archana Maheshwari, the mediator, it is informed that the mediation proceedings have failed. Thus, the matter has been listed today before this Court for orders.

(3.) The petitioner and respondent no.4, who were also heard in person in Chambers (of this Court), and this Court again inquired if there is any possibility of settlement between them as the petitioner is seeking termination of her pregnancy on account of matrimonial dispute only, however, the petitioner has categorically stated that she does not wish to continue with her pregnancy as she is already having serious differences with her husband, and as a result of which she has also lodged the FIR, and in case the pregnancy is not terminated at this stage only, she would suffered irreparably for the rest of her life as the future of her child would be also jeoparadised on account of dispute between her and her husband, the respondent no.4.