Right to live with dignity includes right to fulfill duties as good husband: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High court recently held that the right to live a dignified life under Article 21 of the Constitution also includes the right to fulfill duties as a good husband to one's wife [Amar Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.]..Justice Arun Monga opined that the right to live with dignity includes the right to fulfill one’s familial and marital duties which are integral to human dignity and societal expectations.The Court made the observation while allowing a man's release on interim bail to attend to his ailing wife who needed urgent medical surgery. “Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India, 1950, also encompasses right to live with dignity as a human being which necessary entails to act as a good husband in terms of the marital wows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals,” the Court observed in its October 24 bail order..The temporary bail plea was filed by a man (petitioner) facing multiple cases for cheating and allied offences in a case concerning the Sanjivani Credit Cooperative Society. The petitioner was booked under various provisions 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 public servant etc.), Section 467 (forgery), Section 468 (forgery for cheating), Section 471 (using forged document), and Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy).He had remained in jail since November 2022.He sought temporary bail of three months due to the critical medical condition of his wife, who required urgent spinal surgery and lacked adequate support without him. He told the Court that delays in conducting the surgery could worsen his wife's condition and pose a risk to her life.On October 16, the Court had given public prosecutor time to respond to the petitioner's submissions regarding his that his wife's precarious medical condition. However, the prosecution did not challenge the medical facts..On October 24, the Court proceeded to grant the petitioner 60 days of interim bail to care for his wife post-surgery.The Court granted bail after noting that there was no substantial risk that the petitioner would abscond or tamper with evidence, given that the bulk of the evidence was documentary in nature and had already been secured. Accordingly, based on the the petitioner's essential role as a caregiver for his wife and the lack of alternative family support, the Court deemed it necessary to provide him temporary bail of 60 days on humanitarian grounds..Advocate Priyanka Borana represented the petitioner. The State was represented by public prosecutor Advocate Vikram Rajpurohit. .[Read Order]