THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20835 of 2002 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted seeking directions to Respondents No. 1 to 3 to provide her protection from the attempts of the 4th respondent to procure her custody by illegal means. The writ petitioner submits that she was 22 year-old and married to the 4th respondent on 11th October 2000. She also submits that she gave birth to a girl child on 8th October 2001 named as Kavita. It is submitted that during April 2002, the 4th respondent has suffered from high fever and, therefore, he was taken for treatment to a physician by name Dr. C.V. Subba Rao. The said physician, after clinical diagnosis, arrived at a finding that possible, the 4th respondent was HIV positive. Hence, the writ petitioner was immediately subjected to clinical examination and then, she was found not to be afflicted with the said disease. Therefore, she has been advised by the Physician not to continue any further marital relationship with the 4th respondent, without properly protecting herself. Hence, she has removed herself from the company of the 4th respondent and was living at her parental house. She submits that she had a further consultation with some other doctors at Hyderabad, who confirmed the finding that the 4th respondent husband of the writ petitioner is afflicted with HIV positive and which may have even further deteriorated into Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). It is submitted by the petitioner that the 4th respondent has been calling her and threatening her with serious consequences, if she fails to join him at their matrimonial home. In those set of circumstances, she approached the 3rd respondent - Station House Officer, Nereducherla Police Station, Nalgonda District. After noticing that the 4th respondent was diagnosed as a HIV positive patient, the local police have declined to interfere in her decision not to rejoin the 4th respondent. Sensing that the 3rd respondent police are not helping him, the 4th respondent is said to have arrived at the parental residence of the writ petitioner on 22nd November 2002 along with certain anti-social elements in an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 16X 3394 and tried to forcibly remove the writ petitioner and her daughter from the custody of her parents. While the writ petitioner has been resisting the illegal attempts of the 4th respondent and the other persons, who accompanied him that day, the neighbours in the locality have intervened and advised the 4th respondent not to indulge in forcibly removing the writ petitioner and her daughter from her parental custody, in view of his health condition. Since good number of neighbours have assembled on that day, the 4th respondent could not do anything by way of forcibly removing the writ petitioner from the custody of her parents’ house, but however, he has unleashed a threat that he would remove the writ petitioner and her daughter forcibly at the earliest. Hence, she instituted the above Writ Petition. The writ petitioner has enclosed a copy of the findings of the Diagnostic Laboratory, by name Vijaya Durga Clinical Laboratory, Vijayawada, where the 4th respondent was tested under reference by Dr. C.V. Subba Rao. The findings of the Clinical Laboratory are; HIV I – Reactive, HIV-II – Non-reactive. The method by which the blood sample was analyzed was noted by the Laboratory as Tri-Dot. The writ petitioner has also enclosed another test report of the blood sample of the 4th respondent, dated 9th May 2002. The microbiological report indicated that he was HIV Reactive. Consequently, the 4th respondent was clinically diagnosed to be HIV positive. The writ petitioner is, no doubt, the legally wedded wife of the 4th respondent, but however, the conjugal authority of the partners in a matrimony, cannot result in usurpation of their respective rights. Hence, the writ petitioner has a right of her own to lead a life with honour and dignity. She has also a right to lead a life full of vigour and vitality. She has got a fundamental right to lead a healthy life. She has a right to protect herself from any disease. Right to life, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, does not mean a kind of animal existence. It talks of a life of various hues and meaningful dimensions. Life includes vibrant facets, one of them, undoubtedly, being the right to lead a healthy life. No person, all due to a matrimonial bond, can be forced, therefore, to put ones own health condition voluntarily or otherwise in risk or jeopardy. HIV is a kind of disease, which can be transmitted from person to person and one of the known modes of such transmission is through the intimate contact between two persons. Therefore, the writ petitioner is thoroughly justified in declining to join the matrimonial company of the 4th respondent husband. It is based upon a proper and sound assessment of her own condition of health and the inevitable risk factors involved in the process of joining the matrimonial company of the 4th respondent. The writ petitioner is, therefore, perfectly within her bounds of law in declining to join the company of the 4th respondent. she is perfectly legitimate in seeking to protect her own life guaranteed by Article 21 of our Constitution. Correspondingly, the 4th respondent has no legal right to insist upon the writ petitioner to join his company which has the potential mischief of impairing the fundamental right of the writ petitioner. For what reasons and factors, he had contacted HIV is not an issue for debate. What is at stake is whether the 4th respondent, in spite of his knowledge that he has turned HIV positive, can insist on the writ petitioner to join his company or not. Since the possibility, nay the eventuality, of transmission of the dreaded viral disease of the 4th respondent to the writ petitioner is bright, if she joins his company, which factor with any reasonable certainty cannot be ruled out, the preventive aspects thereof acquire greater significance. Prevention, as is too well known, is much better than the subsequent cure. Further, the State is also struggling to arrest the spread of this dreaded virus. Therefore, even from the public interest standpoint, the decision of the writ petitioner deserves commendation. I, therefore, consider it absolutely appropriate that the writ petitioner shall be extended necessary protection by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at any time and at any hour of the day, to prevent the 4th respondent from forcibly removing her or her tender aged daughter, either from the custody of her parental home or at any other place where she was found living. The 4th respondent cannot remove and force the writ petitioner to join his company without her express consent for doing so. Therefore, the 4th respondent is also correspondingly restrained from forcibly removing the writ petitioner or their daughter or insist upon the writ petitioner to join his matrimonial company, without her first obtaining free and voluntary consent. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. ----------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 26th November 2009 ksld