Dismissed

Komal Rohan Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2021WP/4827/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy. A medical board confirmed fetal defects, leading the court to permit the procedure in the named hospital. Petitioners submitted that the termination was successfully completed.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to undergo medical termination of pregnancy in the respondent hospital.

Komal Rohan Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Priya Soparkar

¶2

PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR

¶3

Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2021.09.16 15:29:00 +0530

¶4

¶5

8 wp 4827-21-c

¶6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.4827 OF 2021

¶8

Mrs.Komal Rohan Bhosale and anr. … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents

¶9

Ms.Suvidha R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.A.B.Kadam, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶10

Mr.Jamshed Mistry alongwith Mr.Dipesh Siroya, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2021.

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners; and Mr.Kadam, learned AGP for respondent No.1/State; and Mr.Jamshed Mistry, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶14

On 30^th August, 2021 we had passed the following order:-

¶15

“2. By filing this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners seek permission of the Court for medical termination of pregnancy of Petitioner No.1 which is stated to be in its 22^nd week on the ground of severe abnormalities in the fetus.

¶16

Be it stated that the Petitioners are husband and wife.

¶17

Having heard learned Counsel for parties and on due consideration, we direct Respondent No.3 i.e. the Dean of Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Mumbai to constitute a Medical Board for examination of Petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 shall report before the Medical Board within 48 hours. After examination of

¶18

2 8 wp 4827-21-c

¶19

Priya Soparkar

¶20

Petitioner No.1, the Medical Board shall submit report to this Court in sealed cover on or before the next date.

¶21

Stand over to 2^nd September, 2021. To be taken up physically after virtual hearing.’

¶22

Thereafter, when the matter was called upon on 2^nd September, 2021, the following order came to be passed:-

¶23

“3. Today, when the matter is called upon, Mr.Jamshed Mistry, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed before us a detailed report of the medical board constituted by respondent No.3 i.e. Nawrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital, Mumbai. We have gone through the report. Opinion of the medical board reads as under :-

¶24

"After careful examination of Mrs. Komal Rohan Bhosale and study of Ultrasonography and 2 D Echo reports of the fetus, the committee has come to a conclusion that the patient's fetus has significant heart structural defect at 22 weeks of gestation. The couple is anguished with the condition of the fetus in utero.

¶25

Therefore, the termination of the present pregnancy is advisable.

¶26

If the honourable court permits termination of the pregnancy can be undertaken in the present case. All the due risks and the responsibility of collateral damage to the mother lies with the couple. The couple has been counseled regarding the same."

¶27

In view of the above, we grant permission to the petitioner No.1 to undergo medical termination of pregnancy in respondent No.3 hospital expeditiously.

¶28

Outcome of the procedure shall be informed to the Court on the next date.”

¶29

Today when the matter is called upon, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 was admitted in the

¶30

Priya Soparkar 3 8 wp 4827-21-c

¶31

Nowrosjee Wadia Maternity Hospital on 6^th September, 2021, whereafter the procedure was successfully carried out on 8^th September, 2021. She was discharged from the hospital on 9^th September, 2021.

¶32

We place on record our appreciation for the urgency shown by respondent No.3/Hospital in doing the needful.

¶33

No further order is called for.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶36

(UJJAL BHUYAN, J.)

Komal Rohan Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Rohan Bhosale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Anadrao Narayan More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Anadrao Narayan More Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

63 Moons Technologies Ltd(Formerly Financial Technologies (India) Limited) Vs the Securities and Exchange Board of India

Prabhavati Dattatray Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra

Mrs. X. Y. Z Vs the Dean of B. J. Govt. Medical College and Sasson Hospital and Ors.

Prabhavati Dattatray Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra