Allahabad High Court: \u00a0<\/strong>Setting a good precedent in the society and in the interest of rape victim and her child, the Bench of Shabihul Hasnain and D.K. Upadhyaya, J.J, held that it is the responsibility of State government to take care of minor rape victim and her child. The Court directed the State to ensure provision of health facility and education to the victim.<\/p>\n

The issue in the present case revolves around the minor rape victim\u2019s pregnancy and her resultant trauma. As per the order of court a select team of doctors ruled out the possibility of abortion as the termination of pregnancy will lead to the delivery of a life preterm baby. Mohsin Iqbal, on behalf of the petitioner argued that the Court should look into this matter from the point of view of Article 21 of the Constitution because the victim and her child both have right to live with dignity. Bulbul Godiyal, on behalf of the respondent assured the Court that the State government will help the victim and her child in every possible manner. She also informed the Court about certain schemes of the government, which are beneficial to the victim. Court appointed J.N.Mathur, as the Amicus Curiae.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Court on perusing the contentions and the concerned statutory provisions, observed that the victim is capable of giving her child for adoption. She is further entitled to be a beneficiary of two schemes i.e. The Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme 2014<\/em> and Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman, 2015.<\/em> The Court on having a detailed discussion upon the rights and protections accorded to victims of sexual crimes in India observed that there is need of a proper legislation regarding rehabilitation of rape victim. [A_through her father F v. State of U.P.,<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>decided on 03.11.2015]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Allahabad High Court: \u00a0Setting a good precedent in the society and in the interest of rape victim and her child, the Bench <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts"],"yoast_head":"\n