Gauhati High Court Allows Advocate To Sponsor Education Of Child Born Out Of Sexual Assault
The Gauhati High Court recently allowed an Advocate who voluntarily came forward to pay and take care of the educational needs of a child aged 4+ years who was born out of a sexual offence committed against their minor mother.A single judge bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua noted that if the authorities are of the view that the victim child who was born out of the aforesaid offence...
The Gauhati High Court recently allowed an Advocate who voluntarily came forward to pay and take care of the educational needs of a child aged 4+ years who was born out of a sexual offence committed against their minor mother.
A single judge bench of Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua noted that if the authorities are of the view that the victim child who was born out of the aforesaid offence was also a victim, a similar amount under the victim compensation scheme must also be paid in the name of the child, over and above Rs. 4,000/- per month that had already been allotted to both victims.
However, the bench was apprised that the State did not have any further scheme for anyone other than under the victim compensation scheme.
The present plea was instituted by the father of the victim mother who at the age of 10 years was subjected to sexual assault resulting in impregnation and she delivered a girl child at the age of about 11 years.
Through the writ petition, the father of the victim mother claimed compensation for the child that was born out of the sexual offence however, the father died during the pendency of the writ petition.
The Court was informed that the victim mother under the law had been provided certain compensation and the perpetrator of the offence had also been convicted in the meantime and was undergoing his sentence.
The Court noted that the victim mother was still a minor who did not have any income for herself, nor did she have any education since the offence put her life in disarray.
The Court observed:
“We see no fault on the part of the child that was born who is presently aged about 4 to 5 years. We are of the view that it is the bounded duty of the society as well as the State to take care of the child and by taking care, we do not mean to take custody of the child, put her in a care home or shelter home or any other Government establishment because the child still has the mother with her as well as the grandmother and from such point of view, has some kind of a family to be around with.”
In the given circumstance, the Court noted that there is no reason as to why the child would not have a legal right to have proper education and to have somebody take care of the daily needs.
It was further noted by the Court that the State had given the extended meaning of the word 'victim' to also include the child that was born out of the aforesaid offence and accordingly were providing certain monetary compensation under the victim compensation scheme.
Senior Government Advocate, D. Nath informed the Court that an amount of Rs. 4,000/- per month was being deposited in the appropriate account for the benefit of both the victim mother and her child and another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the victim compensation scheme had been provided to the victim mother.
“….considering the predicament that the child would have to face, the State awarded compensation as indicated above appears to be grossly inadequate and we have also been told that the State does not have any further scheme for the purpose other than what is indicated above,” the Court said.
However, an advocate practising before the Gauhati High Court voluntarily came forward and made a statement that he would take care of the educational needs of the child from his personal expenses.
The Court observed that the present expense would be at the primary level but once the child grows up and enters education in the secondary or higher education level, definitely the educational expenses would be much more.
However, the Advocate further undertook to arrange the financial requirements of the child from other voluntary sources who are agreeable for the purpose so that the education of the child at the higher education levels can also be adequately addressed.
The Court noted:
“Let the educational requirements of the child be taken care of by [the advocate] and we also leave it to the discretion of [the advocate] to provide any further benefit that the child may otherwise need. The learned counsel for the petitioner shall coordinate the matter with the family of the child as well as with [the advocate] so that regular interaction can take place and the needs of the child can be adequately addressed.”
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 106
Case Title: X v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.