Thokala G_angadhar v. l-amrly Welfare Department. Secietariat

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of ...RESPONDENTS Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of Responde r initiating criminal prosecution, departmental action, and :;1 against Respondent Nos.'6 to 9 for the illegal sex determin r termination of a six-month pregnancy of the Petitioner's wif : the provisions of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal D z (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act), malafied, violative of the Petitioner's fundamental rights unc t of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the rule of law art the Respondents 1 to 5 to forthwith conduct a compreherrr enquiry into the illegal and unauthorized acts committed by i Rekha Rani, including the performance of prenatal sex det3 abortion at her facility Rekha Sagar IVF and Research Cen r Authorities in not atutory proceedings ion and subsequent in gross violation of gnostic Techniques rs illegal, arbitrary, r Articles 14 and 21 consequently direct ive and time-bound :spondent No.6 -Dr. mination and illegal : and take action in accordance with law including seizing of the Hospital. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the ci ( umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the H igh Cou t may be pleased to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to immedrately conduct a p t liminary inquiry and submit a detailed report before this Honourable Court raritl -egard to the illegal prenatal sex determination and abortion allegedly carrrec out by Respondent No.6, Dr. Rekha Rani, at Rekha Sagar IVF and Research lentre, Karimnagar, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR MEDICAL l' EALTH FW Counsel for the Respondents No.4to9: -- The Gourt made the following: ORDER I w_77571_2025 NBK, J THE IION 'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BTIEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.17511 of 2025 ORDER: The crux of the case of the petitioner, as per the writ afhdavit, is that he married respondent No.7-Arra Revathi, who is an employee in the Health Departrnent, and she was six months' pregnant and he was confined in District Jail, Karimnagar, in connection with a criminal case; and during his conhnement, his wife has conspired with the doctor to get aborted the child by illegally resorting to sex determination tests, and in contravention of the PCPNDT Act, and medical ethics, got the pregnancy terminated at the facility of respondent No.6-Dr. Rekha Rani, i.e, Rekha Sagar fVF and Research Centre. Upon release from jait, he questioned the respondent No.7 and she replied arrogantly, and he made a written complaint to the District Collector with supporting docurnents, namely, marriage certificate and wedding photographs etc., and sought strict legal action against respondent No.7, however, the respondent authorities despite their statutory duty of initiating detailed investigation to prosecute the offenders, failed to take any action in the matter; hence the writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Donikeni Satyanarayana, leamed counsel for the petitioner; and learned Govemment Pleader fbr Mcdical & Health. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner made submissions in line with the writ affidavit and contended that the respondent No.7 applied for maternity leave from the Office of District Collector citing pregnancy r€ason but in reality she travelled to Kamataka to attend examinations, thereby suppressed the facts, and further pre-natal sex determination is illegal and the respondent 2 wp_17511_2025 NBK, I No.7 resorted to the illegal act and therefore the me rical doctors who conspired with the respondent No.7 are also punishable e ; per law. 4. Leamed Govemment pleader, ptacing a col). of the written instructions received from District Medicat & Health (rr ficer, Karimnagar, submits that the Enquiry committee investigated into th : complaint of the petitioner and submitted a report stating that "based on t te documentation and verificalion of scan logs, regislerc, and uhrosoun,t tlatfl, the enquiry teom found no evidence supporting the allegoti,t,r of illegal sex determination or abortion in this case,,.

4.1. He further submits that the Starement o Dr. G. Dhivya, Assistant Professor & Dr. P. Deepa, Associate prolessor , ,,as rhat ,,lhe scan daled 04/12/2024 showed a S-week gestational scan. ihe subsequently visited Rekha IVF Centre on 3I/3/2025, and the scan tl,t n de monstrated a lhickened endometrium measuring I2mm- No evidentt of fetat viability t90s seen."

4.2. Further, the Statement of Arra Revathi rec().( ed by the inquiry team, reads as follows: "On 26th November 2025, she conceived. In the month of t) Thokola Gangadhar u'os sent to jaiL Upon inquiry. shc ., lhat he had previonsly married mutliple women and wt.t criminal cases, Shefurther stated thal she is nol *,itting tt lile wilh him- In response lo the complaint givcn b1. Gangadhar, she clarified thdt she did nol undergo an1. se.t ,lr scan or abortion at Rekha Sagar Hospilal or an!,othet ho\ her poor health conditian, she underwent on abortion h.r h month of February. Foltowing the ahortion, she t,isilut t1 Hospital Jor a scan.u ,ccmher, Sri me lo know inyolved in onlinue her iri Thokala lumination 'itu1. Due to ,rself in the 'tkha Sagor 1 I I 3 wp_175LL_2O25 NBK J

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record it is to be noted that in the instant case the inquiry committee has recorded the statements of the doctors and also performed tests to ensure if any prenatal tests were done and the inquiry revealed that no such tests to determine the sex of fetus were performed. Further, the statement of respondent No.7, who is a 26 years old adult, reveals that she had poor health condition and she had got abortion done by herself in February and later visited the hospital ofrespondent No.6 for scan. Further, the respondentNo.T came to know that the petitioner had previously married multiple women and involved in criminal cases, and therefore the respondent No.7 made a decision not to continue her life with the petitioner. The respondent No.7 is an adult and therefore she has every right and tiberty to make a conscious decision whether to continue her lif-e with the petitioner or not. Further, the inquiry report does not reveal any offence or illegality as alleged in the writ petition, and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending ifany, shall stand closed S -M. OSM AN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGI //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI D.SATYANARAYANA' Advocate. I Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies. 2 3 d. BSK BS l I I I I I l HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 I ORDER WP.No.17511 ot 2025 .at..'- /, .'. if_ n \ ',. \\ -, '\i: - -.--.j: -- '| !: .:. . i-_,. i ET , \ -,/ .-..-, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS : I I ! I ! i I t I t ! I I I I ! I I ,1 ! l I I tt u {