PUNE: An interim order passed by a magistrate’s court on Monday brought relief to a pregnant woman in a case in which she alleged her husband and in-laws were forcing her to terminate her pregnancy.

The woman, who is a computer engineer, had filed an interim application under sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA).

The court has directed the respondents not to enter the woman’s home till a final decision is made of the main application. The court has prohibited the respondents from making any communication with the woman either in written, electronic or telephonic form. Judicial magistrate first class Umeshchandra More has sent a copy of the order to the probation officer and the Swargate police station to supervise the woman’s condition as per provisions of the PWDVA.

The woman’s husband works as a manager in a private firm. The couple were married on February 10, 2008. She moved the court after her husband and other family members allegedly threatened to forcibly terminate her pregnancy since she had not met their dowry demands of Rs 10 lakh.

Anita Kataria, the woman’s lawyer, told the court that terminating the pregnancy, which was over 14 weeks, was dangerous to the health of the woman and her child. According to Kataria, the woman’s husband had threatened to divorce her if she continued with the pregnancy. Kataria submitted that the respondents frequently issued threats that they would forcibly terminate the pregnancy and asked the court to restrain the respondents from forcing the woman to get an abortion.

The respondents lawyer, Ajit Kulkarni, refuted allegations that his clients had threatened the woman. Kulkarni asked that the court reject the interim application as there was no provision for granting such relief in the DV Act.

The magistrate observed, "The court can grant interim or ex-parte relief if there is a prima facie case under section 23 (1) of the Act. There is documentary evidence to show that domestic violence had taken place. The police complaint, dated April 29, filed by the woman reveals that the respondents had threatened and harassed her to abort the child."

"The written say of the respondent reveals that he had no objection to grant such relief, but he has registered his objection that the court has no jurisdiction to decide the application," the court said.

"Section 20 of the DV Act gives ample power to the court to establish a procedure as it deems fit in the interest of justice. The applicant has prima facie proved that she has suffered harassment and has received threats from the respondents for abortion of the foetus," the order stated.
 

Source: