Punjab and Haryana High Court: “Motherhood in innate, forcing wife to terminate pregnancy against her will amounts to cruelty”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court while stressing over that motherhood is natural, innate, and fulfilling to every woman in the case Renuka v. Shelly Kumar observed that forcing a wife to terminate her pregnancy against her will constitutes cruelty.

The bench comprising of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Nidhi Gupta observed and decreed the petition for divorce filed by a wife under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and thus, dissolved the marriage of the parties solemnized in 2012 by passing a decree of divorce.

It was also noted by the bench comprising of Justice Bahri and Justice Gupta that the wife was forced to terminate her pregnancy against her will at the insistence of her husband and however, she could not conceive again due to gynecological complications, which, in Court’s view has constituted cruelty.

Background of the Case

In August 12, the parties got married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and the wife started living with her husband and his family members. It was alleged by her that she was constantly tortured physically, mentally, and emotionally by her husband and his family members as they pestered her incessantly demanding more dowry.

Further, it was alleged by her that in October 2012 she got pregnant, however, her husband forcibly got her pregnancy terminated stating that he had no means to bring up the child. Thus, even after the termination of her pregnancy, she was not allowed to rest as was required for recovery, and though she felt very weak still his mother and the respondent made her work due to which the appellant developed gynecological complications due to which she was not able to conceive again.

It was also stated by her about certain events that caused mental agony to her in her matrimonial home. Finally, in 2015 she was turned out of the matrimonial home, and thus, alleging that she was treated with cruelty and her husband deserted her, a petition was filled by her under Section 13 of the Act before the Family Court, Hisar, which the court dismissed and aggrieved with the same she moved to the High Court.

Observations Made By High Court

It was noted by the court that the allegations put forth by the wife that she could not conceive due to gynecological complications developed after being forced to terminate the pregnancy were well supported by the medical records as in 2014 she had also gone to the Fertility Centres where she underwent treatment because she ‘wanted to conceive’.

Further, the court noted that she had made the allegations in that regard before the family court as well, therefore, the husband’s denial to the very serious allegations was lackadaisical and limited, without any specifics.

However, the court noted that the conduct of the parties in the present case showed that there are irreconcilable differences between the parties, rendering the marriage, a mere legal fiction. Consequently, taking note of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli’, (2006) 4 SCC 558, wherein the court allowed the appeal of the wife and decreed the petition for divorce filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.