LJMC, P/A- 06

LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL

NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023-

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF AMANAABAD
(UNDER ART 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF AMANAABAD, 1950)

Special Leave Petition No................/2024

Daivik Singh..................................................................Appellant

Versus

Aadvika Kaur and Ors............................................Respondent

{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER}

 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COMPETITION 2023-24

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................................4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................5
1. List Of Cases.................................................................................................................4
2. Constitutions.................................................................................................................5
3. Statutes..........................................................................................................................6
4. Books.............................................................................................................................6
5. Dynamic Links..............................................................................................................6
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.......................................................................................8
STATEMENT OF FACTS.......................................................................................................9
LIST OF DATES...................................................................................................................12
STATEMENT OF ISSUES......................................................................................................14
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................15
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.................................................................................................16

1. WHETHER OR NOT THIS SLP IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF AMANABAD................................................................................................16
1.1 Special leave to appeal can be filed against the judgment of any court or tribunal 16.
1.2 Violation of fundamental rights by respondents.......................................................17
1.3 Exhaustion of all the alternate remedies.....................................................................18
1.4 Substantial & Grave injustice caused..........................................................................18
1.5 SC is parens patriae.......................................................................................................19

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND

ARE INFRINGED IN THE PRESENT CASE?..................................................20
2.1 Impairs the husband’s right of procreation...............................................................20
2.2 Discriminate against him on the basis of sex.................................................................21
2.2.1 Rights if an unborn child...................................................................................21
2.3 Deny him equal protection of the laws........................................................................24
2.4 Seize the right to live a life of dignity..........................................................................24

3. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND SHOULD BE MADE

MANDATORY AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT BEFORE TERMINATION OF

2
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
C O M P ET IT IO N 2 0 2 3- 2 4 ........
PREGNANCY CONCEIVED F R O M A M A RR I A G E ? 28
3.1 Right of equality violated of husband...................................................................28
3.2 Recognizing the equal role of spouses in family decision.....................................29
3.3 Right to live a life with dignity...............................................................................31

PRAYER.................................................................................................................................33

3
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S. No. ABBREVIATION EXPANSION

1. § Section
2. VS. Versus
3. Art Article
4. ¶ Paragraph
5. AIR All India Reporter
6. Gov. Government
7. H.C. High Court
8. Hon’ble Honorable
9. Ors. Others
10. & And
11. COA Constitution of Amanabaad
12. SCR Supreme Court Reporter
13. p. Page
14. S.C. Supreme Court
15. Sec Section
16. UOI Union of India
17. S.L.P Special leave Petition
18. SCC Supreme Court Cases
19. ILR Indian Law Review
20. Anr. Another
21. MTP Medical Termination of Pregnancy
22. Crpc Criminal Procedure Code
23. MANU Manupatra

4
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

LIST OF CASES

1. Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi MANU/SC/0262/2001: [2001]3SCR20

……………………………………………………………………………………22, 24
2. CEHAT & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors, AIR SC 3309 (2003)
..........................................................................................................................................22
3. Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors 2002 (2) SCC 144
……………………………………………………………………………………...…27
4. Ganendramohun Tagore v. Juttendramohun Tagore, 4 Beng LR (OC) (1870)
………………………………………………………………………………..…….…22
5. Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr; AIR 1999 2 SCC 228
……………………………………………………………………………………..16, 27
6. Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
…………………………………………………………………………………………28
7. P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam (1980) 3 SCC 141
…………………………………………………………………………………………15
8. Pritam Singh v. State1950 SCR 453
………………………………………………………………………………………….17
9. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 138
………………………………………………………………………………………….22
10. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of W.B (1996) 4 SCC 37
………………………………………………………………………………………….22
11. State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2015) 4 SCC 334: AIR 2015 SC 696
………………………………………………………………………………………….15
12. Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi MANU/SC/0419/1987: [1988]1SCR1010
……………………………………………………………………………………….24, 29
13. State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Jivaji Rao Scindia
……………………………………………………………………………………………28
14. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Greatship (India) Limited MANU/SC/1206/2022
……………………………………………………………………………………….……17
15. Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh MANU/SC/1386/2007 :(2007)4SCC511
……………………………………………………………………………….……………24
16. Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur MANU/SC/4705/2008
……………………………………………………………………………….……………24
17. Suchita Shrivastava v. Chandigarh Administartion, 9 SCC 1 (2009)
……………………………………………………………………………………………22

5
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

18. Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit MANU/SC/8038/2006: AIR2006SC1662

……………………………………………………………………………..…………24, 25
19. Vinod Soni and Ors. V. Union of India Cri LJ 3408 (2005)
……………………………………………………………………………………………22

International Cases
20. McCrory v. Abortion Rights Coalition of America 857 F. Supp. 622 (W.D. Ark.
1994)
……………………………………………………………………………….……………17

CONSTITUTIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950

2. The Constitution of Amanabaad, 1950

STATUTES

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 312, Act No. 45 of 1860

2. Amanabaad Penal Code of 1860, § 312, Act No. 45 of 1860
3. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3 Clause 2, Act No. 34 of 1971
4. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021, § 3 Clause 2, Act No. 8 of
2021
BOOKS

1. Basu, D., Lakshmanan, A., Manohar, V., Banerjee, B. and Khan, S. (2009). Shorterconstitution
of India.

2. V.V. Shukla’s Constitution of India, Mahendra Pal Singh, 12 Edn. p.215

3. Law and Medicine, Dr Lily Srivastava, 2nd Edition

4. Penal law of India, Dr Sir Hari Singh Gour, 11th Edition.5.

5. Amar Jesani, and Aditi Iyer, "Women and Abortion", 27 Economic and Political Weekly(199)

6. Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269]

DYNAMIC LINKS

6
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
1. www.manupatra.com

2. www.scconline.com

3. www.heinonline.org

4. www.westlawindia.com

5. www.lexisnexis.com

7
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The present Petition/Appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant(s) in the Special Leave Petition,
which is now pending before this Hon'ble Court.

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. [SLP (C) No.] Of 2024

THE APPELLANT HAS APPROACHED THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIVA

TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE OVER THE INSTANT MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF AMANAABAD. THE PROVISION UNDER WHICH THE
PETITIONERS HAVE APPROACHED THE HON’BLE COURT IS READ HEREIN AS
FOLLOWS:

136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India

(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces

THE PARTIES SHALL ACCEPT ANY JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT AS FINAL AND
BINDING FOR THEM AND SHALL EXECUTE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND IN GOOD
FAITH.

The Counsels on behalf of the Appellants humbly submit to the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
court arising under the act to pass orders after due inquiry into the agreements and cartel formed
by respondents. The present memorial sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the
present case.

All of which is respectfully submitted

By

: Counsel for the

8
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
Appellant

9
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Parties:
Mr. Daivik Singh

v.

Aadvika Kaur and Ors.

2. Relation The Singh and the Kaur families have shared their business
between both
and friendship over more than 30 years of their lives and
the families:
now have decided to turn this friendship into family by
proposing marriage between their children. Both Aadvika
and Daivik, after going on numerous dates and discussing
their life aspirations, willingly and consensually agreed to
embark on the journey of marriage. They had a destination
wedding which both the families enjoyed lavishly on
13.06.2019 according to the Hindu rites and rituals. They
entered the sacred bond of matrimony and their married life
was moving on smoothly and happily.

3. Devik’s and Numerous obstacles confronted the couple during their

Aadvika’s marriage. The success of both partners in their professional
marital life: and personal lives was remarkable. Despite disagreements,
the couple remained united through the strong bonds of
family values and affection. After 4.5 years of marriage, on
November 29, 2023, Daivik observes some peculiar
physiological changes in Aadvika and conducts a pregnancy
test to corroborate her pregnancy. The happiness
experienced by both families was immeasurable. Daivik
was ecstatic that after two to three years of attempting, their
life was finally progressing. The next day, he took Aadvika
to a gynecologist for confirmation of the news. The couple
received the news that they were six weeks expectant from
the gynecologist on November 29, 2023.

10
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

4. Beginning of Daivik discovered upon the couple's return home that

tensions Aadvika had been distressed throughout the day and
between the appeared dissatisfied with the pregnancy. Aadvika
couple: communicated to Daivik her desire to terminate the
pregnancy when he attempted to initiate the conversation.
Daivik challenged the reason and subsequently engaged in
an altercation. Much was revealed by Aadvika in
indignation. Daivik gained some startling insights during
this discourse. Daivik was taken aback when he discovered
that Aadvika had unexpectedly terminated three
pregnancies. Daivik was dejected and impotent upon
learning this. She disclosed to him that she had previously
been pregnant but had refrained from informing anyone,
including Daivik. She terminated the pregnancy without
providing an explanation, citing her desire to avoid having
children. She disclosed to Daivik that she had attempted
and failed to terminate the pregnancy once more. After
pleading with Aadvika not to abort the child, Daivik
expressed his deepest desire to start a family with her.
Following the failure of his endeavors, he recalled
Aadvika's consent to have a child prior to their matrimonial
union during their journey together.

5. Filing of Aadvika steadfastly maintained her position and demanded

cases in lower for an abortion. Dejected and despondent, Daivik was
courts: incapable of coming up with a solution. Daivik was
predisposed to social stigma, as he was frequently derided
and subjected to denigrating remarks. As a result, Daivik
assumed personal liability, perceiving himself as the
incapable spouse who failed to bring joy to Aadvika and her
family through the birth of a child. Daivik felt helpless upon
learning this cruel truth, as he lacked the authority and
power to determine the birth rights of his kids. Daivik,

11
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
incensed and helpless, filed a complaint against Aadvika
under Section 312 of the Amanabaad Penal Code of 1860
on 02.12.2023. Daivik requested in his petition to the First
Class Judicial Magistrate that Aadvika's exercise of her
abortion rights be halted by the court. Furthermore, he filed
a petition with the City Civil Court seeking compensation
for damages stemming from the three occurrences of
miscarrying that befell him, the psychological distress he
suffered due to the illegal, unethical, and inhumane
termination of the pregnancy, and the societal disapproval
he encountered due to Aadvika. The Court ruled in favor of
Daivik on 29.12.2023, stating that they have the right to
agree to the abortion of a child created between them.
Daivik received damages from the Civil Court. Aadvika
challenges the 29.12.2023 order before the
High Court of Kalyanpura, feeling offended. After
considering all sides, the High Court affirmed the woman's
right to an abortion under Section 3 of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, as she met all the required
circumstances. The order was issued 20.01.2024.

6. Pending Daivik appealed to the Supreme Court of Amanabaad

Supreme
against the High Court of Kalyanpura's decision. On
Court
Judgment: 25.02.2024, the Supreme Court will decide the appeal.

12
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

LIST OF DATES
DATE TIMELINE
13.06.2019 Ms. Aadvika Kaur and Mr. Daivik
Singh discussing their life aspirations,
willingly and consensually agreed to
embark on the journey of marriage.
They had a destination wedding which
both the families enjoyed lavishly
according to the Hindu rites and
rituals.
29.11.2023 Daivik notices some unusual
physiological changes in Aadvika, and
the couple finds out that they were six
weeks pregnant

02.12.2023 Daivik feeling angry and helpless,

filed a complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class against
Aadvika under Section 312 of the
Penal Code of Amanabaad, 1860.
Wherein Daivik prayed the court to
stop Aadvika from exercising her
abortion rights. He also filed a civil
suit in City civil court for damages for
the loss of child the past 3 times as
well as for the mental agony caused
due to unethical, cruel and illegal
termination of pregnancy and the
social stigma that he had to face due
to Aadvika.

29.12.2023 The Court passed the order in favor of

Daivik providing the rationale that
Daivik has the right to equality to

13
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
have consent in the abortion of the
child who has been conceived from
the wedlock. The Civil Court also
awarded damages to Daivik.
29.12.2023 Aadvika, being aggrieved by such
orders approaches before the High
Court of Kalyanpura to challenge the
order.
20.01.2024 The High Court after listening to both
the sides, set aside the order of the
lower courts and upheld the rights of
the woman to get an abortion done
under

Section 3 of the Medical Termination

of Pregnancy Act as she was fulfilling
all the conditions under the Act.
25.02.2024 This case is now listed before the
Supreme Court of Amanabaad for
final hearing to adjudicate the legality
and validity of husband’s consent
before abortion of child.

14
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

The following issues are most humbly & respectfully presented before the Hon’ble SC of
Indiana for adjudication:
⁓ISSUE - I⁓

WHETHER OR NOT THIS SLP IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME

COURT OF AMANABAAD?

⁓ISSUE - II⁓

WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND ARE

INFRINGED IN THE PRESENT CASE?

⁓ISSUE - III⁓

WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND SHOULD BE MADE

MANDATORY AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT BEFORE TERMINATION OF
PREGNANCY CONCEIVED FROM A MARRIAGE?

15
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether or not this SLP is maintainable before the Supreme Court of Amanabaad?

It is humbly submitted that the present appeal challenging the High Court verdict in the
Supreme Court of Amanaabad is maintainable on multiple grounds. The appeal challenging
the High Court verdict is justifiable due to challenge to its order on the basis of rise of question
of general importance, exhaustion of all remedies, violation of fundamental rights, SC as
Parents patriae, and substantial injustice caused by upholding the High Court's decision.

2. Whether or not the fundamental rights of the husband are infringed in the present case?
It is humbly submitted by the petitioner that abortion is a profoundly intimate and intricate
choice that requires the participation of all potential fathers in addition to the expectant
woman. The Constitution of Amanabaad grants the spouse, Daivik Singh, an inherent
entitlement to equality. Aadvika excludes Petitioner from the decision-making process by
acting independently with regard to pregnancy termination.
Petitioner's right to equal participation in critical family decisions is violated when Aadvika's
actions produce an asymmetry in which the wife has the sole authority to make decisions
regarding matters of material importance to the marital union.

3. Whether or not the consent of the husband should be made mandatory and equally
important before termination of pregnancy conceived from a marriage?
Refusing to grant the petitioner a voice in the determination to terminate his wife's pregnancy
violates his entitlement to equal involvement in affairs pertaining to his own family. This
denial undermines the societal value of shared responsibility within a marriage and
perpetuates gender stereotypes. The attorney wishes to draw the Honorable Judge's attention
to the fact that, as detailed in the fact files, the petitioner has been subjected to derogatory
remarks and social stigma that imply he is incapable of providing happiness for his family. In
addition to tarnishing his reputation, this stigma and discrimination fostered detrimental
gender norms that equated a man's value exclusively with his capacity to bear and nurture
children. When the petitioner is excluded from participatory decision-making regarding
pregnancy termination, his rights to family life and reproductive privacy/autonomy are
infringed. This denial obstructs his capacity to exercise his rights as both an individual and a
spouse, thereby affecting his reputation in society.

16
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

I. WHETHER OR NOT THIS SLP IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF AMANAB

¶ 1. It is humbly submitted that the present Petition filed by petitioners to challenge the High
Court verdict in the Supreme Court of Amanaabad, believing that a substantial question of
law having only female consent for abortion of child conceived from a marriage is
maintainable under Art 1361 on following grounds: [1.1] Special leave to appeal can be filed
against the judgment of any court or tribunal; [1.2] Violation of fundamental rights by
respondents; [1.3] Exhaustion of all the alternate remedies; [1.4] Substantial & Grave
injustice caused; [1.5] SC is parens patriae; [1.6] Question of general public importance.
Hence, the present appeal is maintainable before SC of Amanabaad.

1.1 Special leave to appeal can be filed against the Judgment of any Court or
Tribunal

¶ 2. As rightly pointed out by J. Krishna Iyer,2 when extraordinary power under Art. 136 chases
injustice, sky is the limit. Thus, the Supreme Court while exercising power under Art. 136, not
only acts as a “court of law” but also as a “court of equity”; and such a power are exercised for
doing full and complete justice3.

¶ 3. Art. 1364 talks about Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court which states in clause (1)
“This has also been reiterated in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)5, that Art. 136
confer a wide discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases.” Art. 136
is a special jurisdiction and can be described as “a residuary power, extraordinary in its
amplitude and is a corrective jurisdiction that vest a discretion in the Supreme Court. In the
instant case, the petitioner approaches the SC against the order of the High Court of Kalyanpura,
which upheld the rights of the woman to get an abortion done under Section 3 of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, without answering the most important and substantive question

1
Indian Constitution, 1950, Art 136
2
P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, (1980) 3 SCC 141
3
Id.
4
Supra No. 1.
5
State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334: AIR 2015 SC 696

17
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

of law i.e. having only female consent for abortion of child conceived from a marriage, which is
as per appellant inadequate, as father of an unborn child should have a right to prevent the
mother having an abortion. He has an argument viable in law to present to the court to prevent
the child being aborted; it is arguably not unreasonable that he should have such a right. The
appellant argues that the circumstances surrounding the respondent’s abortion warrant the
Supreme Court's intervention to ensure adequate judgement, upholding the principles of equal
say of partners in any important decision in a marriage. Hence, the appeal is maintainable in the
Hon'ble court.

1.2. Violation of Fundamental Rights by Respondents

¶ 4. Respondent's actions have led to a violation of the fundamental right to an extent, which is
implicit in the right to life under Article 216 and Article 147 of the Constitution. The appellant
has a right to seek redressal for the violation of these fundamental rights. It is humbly submitted
before this honorable court that denying the husband right to consent in matters of abortion
violates the constitutional principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
Amanabaad. By permitting only the wife's consent, the law disproportionately burdens the
husband and undermines the fundamental right to equality.

¶ 5. In the landmark case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr.8 - the
Supreme Court of India ruled that denying the father's rights solely based on gender is
discriminatory and goes against the spirit of equality enshrined in Article 14. In the present case
the counsel pleads for recognizing the consent of husband as necessary and making it important
to have his consent where the husband is the victim and has suffered the loss of 3 unborn
children and where if he doesn’t have the right to consent, he would also suffer the loss of the
4th unborn child.

¶ 6. In the present case according to the facts, Petitioner is facing facing societal stigma as
everyone is passing derogatory statements questioning his ability to reproduce a considering
him impotent. Thus, his consent is necessary in whether this unborn child be aborted or not.
The counsels plead before this Honorable Apex Court that, Petitioner's societal dignity can be a
significant aspect in the present case, and that the denial of his right to participate in the
decision-making process concerning the termination of pregnancy impacts his societal standing.

6
Article 21. Protection of life and personal liberty, The Indian Constitution, 1950
7
Article 14. Equality before law, , The Indian Constitution, 1950
8
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr AIR 1999 SC 2

18
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
1.3. Exhaustion of all the Alternate Remedies

¶ 7.The appellant in the present case has exhausted all the available remedies by initially filing
the case with a Judicial Magistrate First Class; the appellant in the present case has exhausted
all available remedies. Furthermore, upon appeal to the High Court, the order rendered by the
High Court neglected to account for the appellant's fundamental rights as a prospective parent
and father. The respondent has exhausted all feasible legal remedies at his disposal; however,
none of them offer a prompt and efficient resolution to safeguard his potential paternity rights
in light of an impending abortion. In the case of The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs.
Greatship (India) Limited9 it was held:

“That when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains
from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.”

Now, in the present case, it is very evident that there is no available remedy that the petitioner
can rely upon for justice.

“The time-sensitive nature of abortion and woman's right to obtain one without undue burdens
or delays. However, it also acknowledged the potential harm to the father's interest if denied
the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process”10.

1.4. Substantial & Grave Injustice caused

¶ 8. In the case of Pritam Singh v. State11 SC held that a special leave petition only is accepted
if there “exceptional and special circumstances exist”, that “substantial and grave injustice”
has been done and the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of the decision appealed against. In the present matter, upholding the High Court's decision
would result in substantial and grave injustice. As a consequence of the approaching abortion
and the fact that he will not be able to participate in the decision-making process, Petitioner
will certainly experience feelings of emotional discomfort and worry. Furthermore, the
permanent and irreversible nature of abortion, which renders the decision of the High Court
final and eliminates any future opportunities for him to contest paternity or seek parental
rights, will further jeopardize his right to fatherhood and give him the opportunity to establish
a relationship with his biological child.

9
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Greatship (India) Limited MANU/SC/1206/2022
10
McCrory v. Abortion Rights Coalition of America, 857 F. Supp. 622 (W.D. Ark. 1994)
11
Pritam Singh v. State, 1950 SCR 453

19
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

¶ 9. A probable imbalance in conjugal rights is enhanced as a result of the ruling issued by the
High Court, which is detrimental to spouses and raises issues regarding gender equality. The
High Court ruling disregards these changes, which results in injustice owing to its failure to
adapt to the ever-changing legal environment. This is despite the fact that there are
international precedents addressing the permission of the spouse in abortion. The respondent
believes that this is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to ponder on a complex and
nuanced topic that has wider social repercussions. If the Supreme Court were to do so, it
would set a legal norm that promotes equality and defends the rights of all parties affected.

1.5 SC is parens patriae

¶ 10. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, has the inherent jurisdiction as parens
patriae to protect the rights and interests. In the present case, where respondent’s potential
fatherhood rights might be jeopardized by the High Court order permitting abortion without
his consent, the concepts of parens patriae is raised. On the perusal of the maxim parens
patriae it means “parent of the country," signifying the state's role as guardian for individuals
unable to protect their own rights, like minors or mentally incapacitated persons.

RELEVANCE WITH THE PRESENT CASE

Though not yet born, the unborn child can be considered vulnerable. The Supreme Court,
acting as parens patriae, has a duty to ensure the child's best interests are considered,
including the right to know its father and potential establishment of respondent’s parental
rights before the abortion.

20
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
II. WHETHER OR NOT THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE HUSBAND INFRINGED IN THE PR

¶ 11. In the light of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the primary issue which the Court
must eventually decide is whether a married woman has the exclusive right to make an
abortion decision during the pregnancy without regard to her husband's rights. There are
certain constitutional rights which attach to the husband, the wife does not have an exclusive
right to make an abortion decision. To grant her such an exclusive right to terminate her
pregnancy would: [2.1] Impair the husband's right of procreation; [2.2] Discriminate against
him on the basis of sex; [2.3] Deny him equal protection of the laws; [2.4] Seizing the right to
live a life of dignity.
2.1 Impair the husband's right of procreation

¶ 12. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
But procreation, like marriage, requires the involvement of two individuals. Thus, if the law
provides that the abortion decision belongs exclusively to the wife and makes the husband a
stranger to such a decision, then it ceases to be meaningful to speak of procreation as a basic
human right. It has become an individual right, belonging solely to the woman. But this
conclusion is inconsistent with the holding in Skinner. From this analysis it is clear that the
law which makes a wife the sole decision maker in an abortion has totally disregarded the
husband's right of procreation; it has, in effect. This unpleasant conclusion is inescapable if
the woman alone is acknowledged to have the ultimate right to determine whether or not a
child will be born. In the present case of the Petitioner, the respondent had unilaterally declared
her decision not to give birth to a child, and also arbitrarily aborted the earlier three pregnancies.
¶ 13. As per the Hindu personal law, marriage is considered to be the very foundation of a stable
family and civilized society; it’s a sacred institution that awards status and security to the
parties and their offsprings. It is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound
in a permanent relationship for physical, social and spiritual purposes of dharma, procreation
and sexual pleasure.
The term marriage, in general, would be defined as a consensual and contractual union of a
man and woman in the eyes of the society while being recognized by the law. As per the
Hindu personal law, marriage is considered to be the very foundation of a stable family and
civilized society; it’s a sacred institution that awards status and security to the parties and

21
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
their offspring’s. It is a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in a
permanent relationship for physical, social and spiritual purposes of dharma, procreation and
sexual pleasure. The term marriage, in general, would be defined as a consensual and
contractual union of a man and woman in the eyes of the society while being recognized by
the law. Praja Sampatti, also known as Procreation; this is regarded as the second most
important aim of Hindu marriage. The Hindu thinkers regarded this as a duty towards both the
family and the community as well as for one’s salvation

2.2 Discriminate against him on the basis of sex

¶ 14. One of the arguments used by those who advocate the view that a woman should have the
exclusive right to make an abortion decision is that the fetus is in her body and, prior to
viability is not a legal entity; thus it must be considered an integral part of her body. This
argument is unsound; it overlooks the important fact that pregnancy is not normally a
condition which a woman can bring about on her own. Pregnancy is the fruit of the
cooperative enterprise requiring the participation of the husband. It so happens, the nature, for
reasons unknown to mortals, has entrusted the nurturing of the fetus to woman. The husband
impregnates the wife, and the wife nurtures the resultant life in her body: these are the
respective functions nature assign to them. Uneven though the assignment maybe, they are
nature’s and not mankind’s doing. From the fact that woman is burdened with the fetus for a
period of 9 months, one may not legitimately infer that the husband’s contribution to the
creation of a life is less important or real; nor does it render his interest in the fetus less
legitimate.
¶ 15. The husband’s interest in the fetus is coextensive with that of the wife by virtue of it being
a join creation. That she happens to be the one who must carry the fetus in her womb in what
nature ordains. However, to employ this biological fact as a basis for asserting a legal right is
obviously to engage in sex based discrimination.
Fundamental rights in our legal system in our legal system are not apportioned on the basis of
sex, color, religion or any other origin.
Article 1412 Equality before law- The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Clearly, this article does
not mandate an exclusive right to a wife in the matter of aborting a fetus.

12
Article 14, Equality Before Law, The Indian Constituion, 1950.

22
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
Similarly, Article 16 of the International Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of
equality between the sexes13: “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race,
nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to
equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and its dissolution." Surely, there is no equality of
rights "during marriage” if one married partner has exclusive determination of the issue of
procreation.
2.2.1 Rights of an unborn child

¶ 16. It is most humbly submitted that, Unborn means who is not born. This word is affiliated to
a legal maxim “en ventre samara” which means ‘in mother’s womb’. The question is whether
an unborn can be considered as a person in the eye of law and can claim the rights as other
human beings. The Amanabaad legal system has been recognizing the right to life of a fetus
through various legislations and judicial pronouncements from the past.

I. § 416 of Cr.P.C14. specifies to postpone capital sentence of a pregnant woman until child
birth.

II. § 13 of Transfer of Property Act, 188215 recognizes the existence of an unborn child. Though
the person is not yet born, a property can be transferred to it as the law recognizes its future
existence.

III. § 20 of the Hindu Succession Act,195616 permits an unborn person to inherit his father’s
property at the time of his death as if he or she had been born before the death of the property
owner.

IV. Explanation to § 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 17 states that, a minor includes a child in
mother’s womb.

V. § 58 of Offences against persons Act, 186118 prohibits unlawful termination of pregnancy.

VI. The Maternity Benefit Act 196119 provides that pregnant woman shall not do any work which
interferes with her delivery or the normal development of the fetus or which affects her
health.
The validity of Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex

13
Article 14, Equality before law, The Indian Constitution, 1950
14
§ 416 of Cr.P.C
15
§ 13 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882
16
§ 20 of the Hindu Succession Act,1956
17
Explanation to § 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963
18
§ 58 of Offences against persons Act, 1861
19
The Maternity Benefit Act 1961

23
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
Selection) Act of 1944 was questioned before the Bombay High Court, wherein it was held
that, Article 21 is said to govern the right if every fetus to full development. The sex
determinations whether at preconception stage or otherwise, are the denial of a child’s right to
expansion, or if it can be so expanded, right to come into existence.20 Further, the Apex Court
while addressing a petition requesting effective implementation of the 1994 Act states that
despite of whatever might be the sex of the fetus; every fetus has the right to full
development21. The reproductive autonomy of the women cannot be interpreted to the extent
of the violation of the right to life and full development of a fetus.
¶ 17. Furthermore, no right is an absolute right as it is always subject to the reasonable
restrictions established by law. Pregnancy is a subject matter which calls for effective
legislations and implementation especially when it comes to termination. Though a woman has
reproductive autonomy22, it should always be viewed as a balanced right between the mother
and the fetus, and should not be considered in isolation. The legislations challenged by the
petitioner in the present case, only act as a reasonable restrictions imposed on the termination
process in the “best interest” of the mother and the child. There always exists a compelling
state interest to protect the rights of the prospective child. A woman should be granted only a
qualified right to abortion as provided under the MTP Act, 1971 and not an absolute right to
termination as claimed by the respondent in the present case. There are some exceptions
which uphold the dignity and value for life of both the woman and the child. These exceptions
may include termination performed under the following grounds:

• Eugenic Grounds

• Humanitarian Grounds and

• Social Grounds

¶ 18. Again, in the case of Ganendramohun Tagore v. Jutterndramohun Tagore23, the

Supreme Court observed that an infant in womb is a person in existence for the purpose of
making a gift for the child.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the case of Paramananda Katara v. Union of India24 and
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of W.B25. held that Article 21 (supra) casts an
obligation over doctors and the state to preserve life. The Hippocratic oath taken by the

doctors
20
Vinod Soni and Ors. V. Union of India Cri LJ 3408 (2005)
21
CEHAT & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors, AIR SC 3309 (2003)
22
Suchita Shrivastava v. Chandigarh Administartion, 9 SCC 1 (2009)
23
Ganendramohun Tagore v. Juttendramohun Tagore, 4 Beng LR (OC) (1870).

24
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
24
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 138
25
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samiti v. State of W.B (1996) 4 SCC 37

25
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

before entering the medical profession stands against unreasonable termination of pregnancy.

¶ 19. While addressing a similar issue in the present case, the Bombay High court upheld the
validity of MTP Act, 1997 stating that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the act is well
within the ambit of Article 21 (supra) and only aims to save human life.26 But in the present
case of the petitioner, there is no mention of the respondent suffering from any disease, or the
mention of the baby suffering from a disease which might risk his/ her life after birth, here the
previous three abortions and the current proposal of the abortion is not in the favor of saving
anyone’s death.
2.3 Deny him equal protection of the laws

¶ 20. If the abortion decision belongs exclusively to the married woman, whenever there is a
disagreement between her and her husband on this issue, the outcome is predetermined in
favor of the wife. What is crucial here is not that the law favors one party rather than the other,
but that it favors in such a way as to deny equal protection to the other although both are
similarly situated. This point can be easily established by considering two situations that might
arise whenever husband and wife disagree on an abortion. One would be where the wife does
not want to be a mother but the husband wants to be a father. If the wife is given the exclusive
right to make an abortion decision, then clearly, she is given the right to determine more than
her own status as non-mother, for such a right entail imposing upon the husband the status of
non-father-a status that he does not want. The second possibility is the reverse of the above:
the wife wants to be a mother but the husband does not want to be a father. If the right to
terminate the pregnancy belongs exclusively to the woman, then once more she is given the
right to choose motherhood and the right to impose upon the father the status of fatherhood a
status he does not want. In both situations, the wife's decision to bear or not to bear a child is
ipso facto determinative of the husband's status as a father or non-father. And in each instance
the wife is free to choose or to reject motherhood while the husband is systematically denied
the equivalent right to choose or to reject fatherhood. Similarly situated, the husband finds
himself beyond the purview of any legal remedy. In other words, he is denied the equal
protection of law, which he is entitled under Article 1427.
2.4 Seizing the right to live a life of dignity.
¶21. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution28, which guarantees the right to life and personal

26
Article 21, Protection of life and personal liberty, The Indian Constitution, 1950
27
Article 14. Equality before law, The Indian Constitution, 1950
28
supra

26
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
liberty. This right has been interpreted to include the right to live a life of dignity, which
means that everyone has the right to be treated with respect and to be free from physical and
Mental harm. Freedom from abuse and violence, he has the right to be free from physical,
mental, emotional, or sexual abuse within the marriage. Any form of coercion, hiding facts or
control that violates his physical or mental well-being can be seen as an infringement on his
right to a dignified life.
¶ 22. Matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship. It demands
mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection with sufficient play for reasonable
adjustments with the spouse. The relationship has to conform to the social norms as well. The
matrimonial conduct has now come to be governed by statute framed, keeping in view such
norms and changed social order. It is sought to be controlled in the interest of the individuals
as well as in broader perspective, for regulating matrimonial norms for making of a well-knit,
healthy and not a disturbed and porous society 29. In Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi30, this
Court examined the concept of cruelty. It was observed that the term 'cruelty' has not been
defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act in the
context of human conduct and behavior in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or
obligations. It is a course of conduct of one spouse which adversely affects the other spouse.
The word "cruelty" has not been defined and it has been used in relation to human conduct or
human behavior. It is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and
obligations.31 As herein above-mentioned cases clearly define the cruelty with respect to the
right to life and live with human dignity and the matrimonial relation creates duties and
obligation on both husband and wife. The actions of the present respondent affecting the
dignity of the present petitioner as he was facing societal stigma as people making fun of him
and passing derogatory statements, which led no option, for him other than, blaming himself
thinking that was the one who was impotent
in the marriage32.
¶ 23. In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh33, this Court laid down for guidance; enumerate some
instances of human behavior which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of 'mental
cruelty'. Wherein one is:
(iv) Mental Cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment,

29
Chetan Dass v. Kamla DeviMANU/SC/0262/2001: [2001]3SCR20
30
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi MANU/SC/0419/1987: [1988]1SCR1010
31
Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj PanditMANU/SC/8038/2006: AIR2006SC1662
32
Moot proposition para 6
33
Samar Ghosh v. Jaya GhoshMANU/SC/1386/2007 :(2007)4SCC511

27
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental
cruelty.
In the case of Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur34, the trial observed that the wife was interested
in her career only and she had neglected towards matrimonial obligations and exercise of
conjugal rights by the husband. The trial Court also held that termination of pregnancy by
wife was without consent or even knowledge of the husband which was in the nature of
mental cruelty.
So to conclude all the above mentioned facts and cases, right to live life with dignity seized
by the respondent leading to the mental cruelty on the petitioner.
¶ 24. concept of cruelty has been dealt with in Halsbury's Laws of England35 as under; The
general rule in all cases of cruelty is that the entire matrimonial relationship must be
considered, and that rule is of special value when the cruelty consists not of violent acts but of
injurious reproaches, complaints, accusations or taunts. In cases where no violence is averred,
it is undesirable to consider judicial pronouncements with a view to creating certain categories
of acts or conduct as having or lacking the nature or quality which renders them capable or
incapable in all circumstances of amounting to cruelty; for it is the effect of the conduct rather
than its nature which is of paramount importance in assessing a complaint of cruelty. Whether
one spouse has been guilty of cruelty to the other is essentially a question of fact and
previously decided cases have little, if any, value. The court should bear in mind the physical
and mental condition of the parties as well as their social status, and should consider the
impact of the personality and conduct of one spouse on the mind of the other, weighing all
incidents and quarrels between the spouses from that point of view; further, the conduct
alleged must be examined in the light of the complainant's capacity for endurance and the
extent to which that capacity is known to the other spouse"
¶ 25. In Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit36, the Court said; It is settled by a catena of decisions that
mental cruelty can cause even more serious injury than the physical harm and create in the mind of the
injured appellant such apprehension as is contemplated in the section. It is to be determined on whole
facts of the case and the matrimonial relations between the spouses. To amount to cruelty, there must
be such willful treatment of the party which caused suffering in body or mind either as an actual fact
or by way of apprehension in such a manner as to render the continued living together of spouses
harmful or injurious having regard to the circumstances of the case.
¶ 26. Hence, impotency can have devastating consequences for a husband's life, impacting his

34
Suman Kapur v. Sudhir Kapur MANU/SC/4705/2008
35
Halsbury's Laws of England [Vol.13, 4th Edition Para 1269]
36
Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit MANU/SC/8038/2006 :AIR2006SC1662

28
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
mental and emotional well-being lead to feelings of shame, embarrassment, and depression.
Social standing and reputation lead to isolation, affecting relationships with family, friends,
and the community. And infringement of Right to Live with Dignity: Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right has been interpreted to
include the right to live with dignity, encompassing: Freedom from discrimination and
harassment: No one should be subjected to any form of discrimination or harassment based on
their perceived inability to perform sexually. Right to privacy and reputation: One has the
right to protect their personal information and maintain a good reputation, free from
unfounded accusations.
¶ 27. The counsel of the Petitioner, through the above- mentioned submissions have tried to
establish the case of infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner ny providing
reasonable grounds and chain of event of prejudicial act and by spreading light over it.

29
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND SHOULD BE MADE MANDATORY AN

¶ 28 The Petitioner pleads before this Honorable Supreme Court that the husband's consent
should be made mandatory and equally important before the termination of pregnancy
conceived from a marriage. Several legal, ethical, and social considerations support this
stance.

3.1 Constitutional Right to Equality (Article 14) get violated by not providing husband
an equal say in the termination of pregnancy
¶ 29. It is humbly submitted before this honorable court that denying the husband right to
consent in matters of abortion violates the constitutional principle of equality enshrined in
Article 1437 of the Constitution of Amanabaad. By permitting only the wife's consent, the law
disproportionately burdens the husband and undermines the fundamental right to equality.
In the landmark case of Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr. 38- the Supreme
Court of India ruled that denying the father's rights solely based on gender is discriminatory
and goes against the spirit of equality enshrined in Article 14.
In this landmark case, the Apex Court held that the father has an equal right to guardianship
and custody of his minor child, emphasizing the principle of gender-neutral laws in matters
relating to parental rights.
¶ 30. Hence, making it very clear that in matters related to the children, the differentiation
between parents cannot be made on the basis of the gender, and hence being applicable
directly to the present case, where the High Court, without considering all the important facts,
and ignoring the substantial question of law, by not providing any navigating point for it,
made a judgement which was wholly one sided, just because on the basis of the gender.
¶ 31. In addition, in the case of Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors. 39, the
honorable Supreme Court affirmed the importance of gender equality within the personal
laws. The honorable apex court held that personal laws, including those relating to marriage

37
Article 14. Equality before law, , The Indian Constitution, 1950
38
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India & Anr; AIR 1999 2 SCC 228
39
Danial Latifi & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors Danial Latifi v. Union of India, 2002 (2) SCC 144

30
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
and family, should be interpreted and applied in a manner that aligns with the constitutional
principles of equality. The judgment focused the need to recognize the equal status of spouses
within the framework of personal laws.
Similarly in the present case the counsel pleads for recognizing the consent of husband as
necessary and making it important to have his consent where the husband is the victim and
has suffered the loss of 3 unborn children and where if he doesn’t have the right to consent, he
would also suffer the loss of the 4th unborn child.
¶ 32. The counsels for the petitioner has put reliance on the case pf Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India40: In this landmark judgment on the right to privacy, the
Supreme Court granted the autonomy of individuals in making choices related to their
personal lives. This statement is open to interpretation and in this present case the husbands
should have the right to make joint decisions within the realm of family, including abortion
decisions as by this decision his personal life.
¶ 31. The petitioner argues that the principles that are established in these above cases, which
emphasizes the guarantee of equal rights and status for both spouses, extend to matters
beyond guardianship and custody and should also be applied in the matters of abortion and
termination of pregnancy giving husband the right of having consent. The concept of
constitutional morality supports the argument that denying the husband's consent in abortion
decisions goes against the principles of equality. The petitioner can contend that constitutional
morality demands recognition of both spouses' equal roles and rights in family matters,
including reproductive choices.
In the present case despite the wife promising to have a child before marriage, terminated the
child 3 times without the consent of the husband and wans’t successful the 4th time so for this
present case the consent of the husband should be made necessary.
3.2 Should the MTP Act adapt to contemporary societal norms, recognizing the equal
role of spouses in family decisions
¶ 33. In the present case the counsels plead the court that the principles of a dynamic
constitution, constitutional morality, and the evolution of legal principles be please to invoke
to support the idea/fact that denying the husband's consent contradicts the spirit of the
Constitution and goes against the evolving societal norms of spousal equality.
In the landmark case of State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Jivaji Rao Scindia41 (1971) is
an important case that dealt with the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition

40
Justice K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
41

31
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24
of Jagirs Act, 1951. The subject matter of the above case is different, but the principles
established in this case have broader implications and are open to views of interpretation, as it
emphasizes the dynamic nature of the Constitution and the need for constitutional morality.

3.2.1. Dynamic Nature of the Constitution:

¶ 34. The court in the Madhavrao Scindia case interpreted that the Constitution is not a rigid or
static document but a living and evolving one so should be the laws. This recognition implies
that legal interpretations must adapt to the changing needs and values of society over time.
In the present case, as the husband has no say in whether his unborn child be terminated or
not, this principle is not followed and that laws governing marital relationships, family
decisions, and reproductive rights should evolve to include the husband’s consent. The
Constitution's wide dynamism supports recognizing spousal equality in decisions related to
abortion within marriage.
3.2.2. Evolution of Legal Principles:
¶ 35. The court acknowledged that legal principles must evolve in line with societal
developments. It recognized that constitutional interpretation should reflect contemporary
values and address the changing dynamics of society.
In the petitioner's case, this principle goes hand in hand with the petitioner’s stand that legal
interpretations on spousal consent in abortion should evolve to reflect changing societal
attitudes towards gender roles within marriage. The petitioner can contend that evolving legal
principles should recognize the importance of both spouses in making decisions that impact
their family life.
¶ 36. Again in the case of Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi42, the apex court held that., the
couples are partners in life, and they must equally share happiness and sorrow. One cannot
take pleasure at the cost of the other. On perusal of the above judgement, it is evident that in a
marriage, any important decision shall be taken with the consent of both the partners and a
decision can never be one-sided.
¶ 37. Hence the counsel please the court to decide the present case, where the question is
whether the consent of husband is mandatory for deciding the issue of termination of
pregnancy, with keeping in mind that the courts in many cases have consistently put more
emphasis on the need for gender-neutral interpretations in family-related matters, so herein
the present case the honorable court is requested to give spousal equality in decisions
concerning the family life thus making the husband consent mandatory in abortion cases.
42
Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi MANU/SC/0419/1987 : (1988) 1 SCC 105

32
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

3.3 By giving the right to abortion to only the wife affecting husband’s right to live with
dignity
¶ 38. In the present case according to the facts, the petitioner is facing societal stigma as
everyone is passing derogatory statements questioning his ability to reproduce a considering
him impotent. This whole situation being a big hurdle in his Right to Live a Life of Dignity43.
This also pose a threat to his own mental health which is again the grave consequence of the
steps taken by the respondent. Thus, his consent is necessary in whether this unborn child be
aborted or not. The counsels plead before this Honorable Apex Court that, Petitioner's societal
dignity can be a significant aspect in the present case, and that the denial of his right to
participate in the decision-making process concerning the termination of pregnancy impacts
his societal standing.
¶ 39. Denying the petitioner the right to have a say in the decision to terminate his wives
pregnancy infringes upon his right to equal participation in matters concerning his own
family. This denial spreads gender stereotypes and undermines the societal value of shared
responsibility within a marriage. As provided in the fact sheets, the counsel would like to
bring it to the Honorable Judges attention that Petitioner has faced societal stigma and
derogatory statements, insinuating that he is impotent and incapable of providing joy to his
family. This stigma and discrimination not only harm his reputation but also lead to harmful
gender norms that associated with a man's worth solely with his ability to father children/raise
children. Petitioner’s right to a family life and reproductive privacy/autonomy is violated
when he is denied participation in decisions concerning the termination of pregnancy. This
denial infringes upon his ability to exercise his rights as an individual and a spouse, impacting
his societal image.
¶ 40. Also, the societal mockery and opinionated/narrow-minded comments Petitioner has faced
have a direct impact on his mental health. The denial of his right to participate in the
abortion decision, along with societal mockery, worsens the mental agony he experiences,
violating his right to live with dignity/mental peace.

Petitioner's societal dignity is a crucial aspect of this case, and the denial of his right to
participate in decisions impacting his family life not only violates his fundamental rights but
also subjects him to societal discrimination and stigma.

¶ 41. The counsel of the Petitioner most humbly submits before this Hon’ble Court the
Arguments Advanced articulated in order to establish its case before this Hon’ble Court.
Moreover, the counsel of the Petitioner through its above-mentioned contentions have tried to

43
Article 21, Protection of life and personal liberty, The Indian Constitution, 1950

33
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

establish that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kalyanpura was completely unjust
and non – judicial and that, the most adequate order would be to set aside the judgement
passed by the High Court of Kalyanpura.

34
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF
 LATE SHREE GIRISH PATEL MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOOT
COURT COMPETITION 2023-24

PRAYER

In the light of facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced & the legal authorities cited,
the counsels for the petitioner humbly pray that the honorable court, in exercising its
constitutional jurisdiction, renders a judgement in favor of Petitioner. We respectfully
request the hon’ble court to grant us following:

1. Quash the order of the High court.

2. The Special Leave Petition is maintainable

3. The termination of the pregnancy shall not be allowed beyond the statutory bounds
inscribed in the Section 3 Sub Section 2 Clause (a) & (B)

AND/OR

Pass any further or other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of
the case and in the interest of justice, equity & good conscience & for this act of kindness the
counsel on behalf of the petitioners as in duty bound shall forever pray.

All of which is respectfully submitted & prayed

By: Counsel for the Petitioner

35
{MEMORANDUM ON THE BEHALF OF