Disposed

Gopika Govindan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2017WP(C)/23225/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A social worker sought directions for the medical termination of a 12-year-old pregnant girl impregnated by her 14-year-old brother. The Court relied on a medical board report stating termination would be hazardous, refused the termination plea, and directed the Child Welfare Committee to ensure the mother and child's health, future education, and compensation.

What did the court decide?

Refused medical termination of pregnancy; directed Child Welfare Committee to ensure health, welfare, education, and compensation for minor mother and child.

Gopika Govindan Vs State of Kerala — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017/26TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

WP(C).No. 23225 of 2017 (S)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

GOPIKA GOVINDAN

¶9

D/O.GOVINDAN, COORDINATOR OF THE CHILD RIGHTS INITIATIVE, HUMAN RIGHTS LAW NETWORK, AMULYA STREET KOCHI 18

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.SANDHYA RAJU SMT.J.SANDHYA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GROUND FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695001

¶13

2. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, 6TH FLOOR, ANNEXE-II, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶14

3. THE CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE KAKKANAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 030

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 23225 of 2017 (S)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 8TH JULY,2017 IN THE HINDU EXHIBIT P2 A COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED 10TH JULY,2017 IN THE HINDU RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.23225 OF 2017 --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2017

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶27

The facts of this case are disturbing. A girl of about 12 years has become pregnant and the foetus is about 28 weeks old. The person responsible is none other than her own brother, who is aged 14 years. The petitioner is a social worker who brought the plea of the mother of the children to this Court. She had sought for a direction from the court for medical termination of pregnancy. Twofold reasons are highlighted. Firstly, considering the age of the girl, she would suffer critical health issues not only at the time of delivery but in future as well not to mention the defects that may befall the infant. Secondly, the social stigma that the mother and the child would suffer would be life long and unbearable.

¶28

We called for a medical report from the Government T.D.Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. A report has been submitted today in a sealed cover by the Medical Superintendent, which we have perused. The report clearly states that the girl is a well grown healthy adolescent girl. Considering the growth of the foetus, the opinion of the Medical Board

¶29

W.P.(C) 23225/2017

¶30

¶31

was that termination of pregnancy at this stage would be more hazardous than going through a term delivery. Apprehension has also been raised that if there is a forced medical termination of pregnancy, the girl may suffer permanent damages effecting her future life.

¶32

We have anxiously considered the report. In view of the report of the Medical Board, we cannot now accede to grant the relief in relation to medical termination of pregnancy.

¶33

The question now remains about the welfare of the girl and the child to be born. We are told that the girl is under the custody of the Child Welfare Committee, Kakkanad, Kochi. We would direct the committee to take all necessary steps to ensure the health and welfare of the mother and we would expect the State to extend all help and medical care for the safe and comfortable delivery of the child. Thereafter it would be the obligation of the State to ensure that the child and the mother, who herself is a child, are sufficiently provided for and looked after, which shall include educating the mother child so as to enable her to get employment. Apart from this, the Child Welfare Committee would ensure that she gets her due share under the Victim Compensation Scheme of the State Government, which amount if so received would be kept in fixed deposit as the victim is minor and the interest therefrom shall only be used for her benefit till she attains majority.

¶34

W.P.(C) 23225/2017

¶35

¶36

All these matter would be co-ordinated by the Child Welfare Committee, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, and their responsibility would be full and complete in this regard. The judgment may be communicated to the 1^st respondent, the Child Welfare Committee and the Child Welfare Officer, Kakkanad, Kochi. The report received from the Medical Superintendent shall be kept on record as part of records in this case.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

vps 17.7.17

Gopika Govindan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopika Govindan v. State of Kerala

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

Rupesh Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

Jose K.Mathew Vs Dhanalaxmi Bank Ltd.

State of Kerala Vs C. Balakrishnan

Markose T.G Vs the District Collector

The Regional Transport Authority Vs Shaju

Sarojini P.G Vs State of Kerala