Does Woman With Below Average IQ Has No Right Become A Mother? Bombay HC Asks On Parents Plea To Terminate Daughter's 21-Week Pregnancy
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (January 8) while dealing with a plea of a sexagenarian couple, seeking termination of their "mentally ill" daughter's 21 week pregnancy, sought to know if a woman having an intelligence, below average, has no right to be a mother.
It may not be out of place to mention that the court had in the earlier hearing on last Friday, pulled up the parents and questioned their "parenting" after it noted that they usually allowed the girl to go out of the house at 10 in the night and she returned only the next morning
During the hearing today, division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil orally made the observation enquiring whether the woman can become a mother, after perusing the medical board's report on the woman's physical and mental examination which indicated that the woman was a patient of "Borderline Personality Disorder" and had an IQ of 75 which is below average.
The bench noted that the woman wasn't declared to be "mentally ill" or "retard."
"Just because her IQ is below average, does it mean she has no right to be a mother? Everybody has different levels of intelligence. Not everybody can be super intelligent," Justice Ghuge observed orally.
During the hearing, the bench noted that the medical board has in its report, specifically stated that both the foetus and the mother are "medically fit" for both - to continue the pregnancy and also to abort the same.
However, the counsel representing the parents, told the judges that the woman has disclosed the name of the man, who impregnated her and has expressed her desire to marry him.
"She has said that she loves him and wants to marry him. She is not consenting to abortion," the counsel told the court.
The bench, therefore, sought to know from the parents, if they tried to reach out to the man, whose name their adopted daughter has disclosed.
To this, the counsel answered in the negative.
Irked over this, Justice Ghuge said, "You are the parents, you should take an initiative. Should judges prompt you? Your child has said she wants to marry someone, whom she loves. She is 27 year old. She has not committed any offence, she should feel comfortable and not terrorised... You need to speak to that man. Take an initiative."
The bench, therefore, adjourned the hearing till January 16 for the family to reach out to the man, whose name their daughter disclosed and ascertain if he would marry her or not.
In the previous hearing court had then slammed the parents for failing to provide proper love and affection to the woman, as she was adopted by the petitioner parents, when she was merely six months old. The court had refused to accept the contention of the parents that the girl was "stubborn and violent" and thus did not listen to them and that she was like this, ever since she attained age of 13.