Daijiworld Media Network - Nanded (SHP)

Nanded, Jun 24: A 35-year-old woman pleaded with a family court in Nanded to have a second baby with her divorced husband. Her plea was for conception through either conjugal means or in-vitro fertilization. She stated that she wants to have a child before she could no longer get pregnant, biologically at least.

The court cited that the plea regarding her reproductive rights were under the section of basic civil rights of an individual. The court asked the couple to head for consultation with a marriage counsellor on Monday June 24 and fix a meeting with an IVF expert within a month.

There was an opposition from the husband, who stated the plea was against social norms and illegal. The court then directed the couple to an assisted reproductive technology expert. However, the husband’s consent for an ART is deemed vital.

“A key aspect of personal autonomy are reproductive rights, which entail rights to make sexual and reproductive decision," the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development had said in its 1984 document that defined the term reproductive health. The Family Court Judge, Swati Chauhan in Nanded invoked its value in this case.

Although, the court backed the woman’s plea of excising her reproductive rights, few limitations under the law were also explained. The consent of the husband in ART was considered crucial.

The couple already have a minor child together. A divorce had been filed by the husband in 2017 on the grounds of cruelty by his wife. The plea is still pending and in the meantime the women filed another plea where she approached the family court to have a second child with her estranged husband. The grounds stated for having a second child is to have a sibling for the first kid and also to have a support for the old age.

The opposition laid down arguments as well, stating that there can be no force used to establish conjugal relations, directly or indirectly. The court further explained that even if the respondent refuses ART by giving unreasonable reasons, he could face legal and logical consequences.

Judge Chauhan, in her order said, “The woman has a right to reproduce and she is entitled to exercise it. Not allowing a fertile woman to procreate is like compelling her to sterilize. To curb or to curtail reproductive right may have a subtle and devastating demographic outcome." The wife agreed to withdraw a criminal case of cruelty against her husband if he agrees to ART.