The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court, granting 15-day parole to a convict, who is serving life sentence, to have a matrimonial relationship with his wife, in order to have a child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court said this order of the Jodhpur High Court was three months old and the convict has already returned to the prison, after completing the period of parole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The counsel representing the Rajasthan government said that due to this, the applications for parole were increasing continuously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, the Supreme Court said that it can demand clarification in the order of the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The petition by the Government of Rajasthan had challenged the order of the High Court, stating that this was not a valid ground for allowing parole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It further said that the number of applications for such parole was very large and if parole was given on this basis, then more convicts will come for the same.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court gave this order on the plea by the wife of a convict seeking the release of her husband on the basis of the right of her child.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The High Court observed that the imprisonment affected the sexual and emotional needs of the convict’s wife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Further, the High Court had said that out of 16 essential ceremonies, the first right of a woman was to conceive. Along with this, the court also released on 15 days parole, referring to the principles of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, including the Rig Veda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this case, the convict, Nandlal, is serving life imprisonment in Rajasthan’s Ajmer jail.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a petition challenging the order of the Rajasthan High Court, granting 15-day parole to a convict, who is serving life sentence, to have a matrimonial relationship with his wife, in order to have a child. The court said this order of the Jodhpur High Court was three months […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":274131,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246,64],"tags":[73037,44544,1960,2718,20232],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2022\/06\/15164921\/Supreme-Court-pastles.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278942"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=278942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278942\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/274131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=278942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=278942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=278942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}