Guwahati, Dec 15: The Gauhati High Court has allowed an advocate to take care of the educational needs of a child born out of a sexual offence committed against her minor mother.
The advocate, who is a practising lawyer at the Gauhati High Court, had voluntarily come forward to take care of the educational needs of the child from his personal expenses.
He further stated that he would arrange the financial requirements for the child’s higher education as well from other voluntary sources that were agreeable to provide such financial aid for the purpose.
Notably, the High Court was recently hearing a writ petition instituted under an unfortunate circumstance where a minor girl, aged about 10 years, was subjected to sexual assault, resulting in impregnation and the minor subsequently delivered a girl child at the age of about 11 years.
The minor victim is presently aged about 16 years while the girl child that was delivered is aged about 4 to 5 years.
The writ petition was initially instituted by the father of the victim mother claiming compensation as regards the child that was born out of the sexual offence but unfortunately, the father died during the pendency of the writ petition.
The victim mother under the law had been provided some compensation and the perpetrator of the offence had also been convicted in the meantime, and is undergoing his sentence.
“We are presently concerned with the fate of the child who was born out of the offence, who has nobody to effectively look after her. The victim mother herself is still a minor who also does not have any income of her nor had appropriate education as because the alleged offence put her life in disarray,” a single judge bench of the High Court observed.
The court noted that if the authorities are of the view that the victim child who was born out of the sexual 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 court was apprised that the state did not have any further scheme for anyone other than under the victim compensation scheme.
“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.”
As such, the court observed that there was no reason why the child should not have a legal right to education and to have someone take care of her daily needs.
