In a notable instance of judicial intervention, the Bombay High Court has encouraged a married couple to resolve their marital disputes through mediation before proceeding with a decision on the wife’s request to terminate her 20-week pregnancy due to ongoing matrimonial issues.
The division bench, comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Pravin Patil, suggested that the couple’s disputes appeared reconcilable and recommended that they meet on the premises of the Pune magistrate court over three days this week to attempt an amicable resolution. The court emphasized the importance of creating a congenial atmosphere, particularly considering the potential birth of their first child.
The woman had initially approached the court earlier this month, seeking legal permission to terminate her pregnancy. She cited severe strains in her relationship with her husband, who allegedly expressed regrets about their marriage and doubted the paternity of the unborn child. The husband, on the other hand, countered in his affidavit that while there had been disagreements, he never denied paternity nor refused to support his wife and the expected child.
During a court session on Monday, the judges interacted directly with the couple and noted their maturity, which they believed could lead to a resolution of their issues. The court has also offered the services of a trained mediator to facilitate the discussions, underscoring the potential benefits to the child of a reconciled relationship.
“The wife has stated that if her husband was willing to take good care of the child and treat her properly, then she has no reason to seek a medical termination of the pregnancy,” stated the High Court in its order. This statement reflects the court’s approach to prioritizing the welfare of the unborn child and the mother’s well-being in its considerations.
This case highlights the complex interplay between legal rights, personal relationships, and societal norms. The High Court’s decision to opt for mediation over immediate legal action underscores a broader judicial preference for resolving personal disputes outside the courtroom, particularly when potential life-altering decisions such as terminating a pregnancy are involved.
