Here is the translation:
Hyderabad Nov. 1: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition filed by Ms Sumakiran Mallena, a software professional, requesting that her husband be prevented from donating a portion of his liver to his ailing father. While dismissing the petition, Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy said he was pained that the petitioner had ignored the fundamental reality that her husband owed his existence on this earth to his parents. “It is the selfless sacrifices of the parents that make a child grow and prosper in every respect,” he said. The petitioner had also ignored the reality that nobody could limit or control the mutual affection between parents and children, said the judge. “I find it hard to refrain from expressing some of my feelings before parting with this case,” he remarked. Justice Reddy pointed out that the petitioner did not seem to be conscious of the fact that she herself was a prospective parent and might be in the same situation. He said that the facts of the case raised more ethical issues than legal or constitutional issues, and added that a family squabble was being given the colour of a Constitutional issue in the writ petition. Sumakiran, software analyst in the Intergraph Consulting Private Limited in Secunderabad, is the wife of Nagasayana Baki who is working as a telecom engineer in Minneapolis of the United States . His father, B.G.K. Prasad, is suffering from liver cirrhosis and is being treated at the Apollo Indraprasta Hospital in Delhi . Sumakiran said in her petition that doctors had advised liver transplantation and her husband had flown in from the US on October 20 to donate a portion of his liver to his father. According to her, this would affect the health of her 29-year-old husband, which, in turn will affect her life. “My life will be doomed… in the land of disease and misery,” she said. “It directly offends my right to life and liberty”. She contended that parental affection should be kept under check after a person gets married. However, the judge dismissed the assumptions. “The contention of the petitioner that her husband’s act violates her right under Article 21 is wholly beyond my comprehension,” he said.
Here is a clipping sent to me: