The Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the right to live with dignity encompasses the responsibility to fulfill one’s duties as a good husband. This observation came as the court granted interim bail to a man, allowing him to care for his ailing wife, who required urgent medical surgery. Recognizing the fundamental importance of family obligations, the court underscored that personal dignity includes meeting essential responsibilities within family life.
The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that the right to live a dignified life, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, also includes fulfilling one’s duties as a devoted husband.
Justice Arun Monga emphasized that,
“Right to live with dignity includes the right to fulfill one’s familial and marital duties, integral to human dignity and societal expectations.”
This observation made as the court granted interim bail to a man to care for his ailing wife in need of urgent surgery.
The court highlighted as noted in the October 24 order,
“Article 21’s fundamental right…to live with dignity as a human being…necessarily entails acting as a good husband in terms of the marital vows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals,”
The temporary bail application submitted by a petitioner facing multiple charges related to cheating and associated offenses linked to the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society.
The petitioner was charged under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 406 (criminal breach of trust), Section 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), Section 409 (criminal breach of trust by a public servant), Section 467 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for cheating), Section 471 (using a forged document), and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy).
He had been incarcerated since November 2022.
The petitioner requested temporary bail for three months, citing the urgent medical condition of his wife, who required critical spinal surgery and lacked adequate support without his presence. He informed the Court that any delays in the surgery could exacerbate his wife’s condition and endanger her life.
On October 16, the Court allowed the public prosecutor time to respond to the petitioner’s claims regarding his wife’s serious medical situation.
However, the prosecution did not contest the medical facts presented.
On October 24, the Court granted the petitioner 60 days of interim bail to care for his wife following her surgery.
The decision made after the Court noted that there was no significant risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence, as the majority of the evidence was documentary and had already been secured.
Considering the petitioner’s vital role as his wife’s caregiver and the absence of alternative family support, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant him temporary bail for 60 days on humanitarian grounds.
Advocate Priyanka Borana represented the petitioner, while the State was represented by public prosecutor Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit.
Read Order
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
