Doctor Rakhmabai

Rukhmabai, or Rakhmabai (1864-1955), was an Indian woman who became one of the first practising woman doctors in colonial India. She was also at the heart of a landmark legal case which led to the enactment of the Age of Consent Act, 1891. She was married off at the age of eleven to a nineteen year old groom Dadaji Bhikaji. She however continued to live in the house of her widowed mother Jayantibai who then married Assistant Surgeon Sakharam Arjun. When Dadaji and his family asked Rukhmabai to move to his home, she refused and was supported in her choice by her step-father. This led to a long series of court cases from 1884, a major public discussion on child marriage and on the rights of women. Rukhmabai in the meantime pursued studies and wrote letters to the newspaper under the pseudonym A Hindu Lady. Her case won the support of a number of people and when she expressed her wish to study medicine, a fund was raised for her to travel and study medicine at the London School of Medicine. She graduated and returned to India in 1895, becoming one of India's first women doctors (after Anandibai Joshi) and worked in a women's hospital in Surat.

Rukhmabai was born to Janardhan Pandurang and Jayantibai who came from a community of carpenters (suthars). When Janardhan Pandurang died, Jayantibai transferred her property to Rukhmabai who was then only eight and when she turned eleven, she married her daughter off to Dadaji Bhikaji, then aged nineteen. Jayantibai married a widower, Dr Sakharam Arjun but Rukhmabai stayed in the family home and studied at home using books from a Free Church Mission library. Rukhmabai and her mother were regulars at the weekly meetings of the Prarthanä Samäj and the Arya Mahilä Samäj. Dadaji lost his mother and took to living with his maternal uncle Narayan Dhurmaji. The environment of Dhurmaji's home pushed Dadaji into a life of indolence and waywardness. Dhurmaji had a mistress at home and his wife attempted suicide. Rukhmabai at the age of twelve refused to move to the household of Dhurmaji to live with Dadaji and Sakharam Arjun supported her decision. In March 1884, Dadaji sent a letter, through his lawyers Chalk and Walker, to Sakharam Arjun asking him to stop preventing Rukhmabai from joining him. Sakharam Arjun responded through civil letters that he was not preventing her but soon he too was forced to obtain legal help. Through lawyers Payne, Gilbert, and Sayani, Rukhmabai provided grounds for refusing to join Dadaji. Dadaji claimed that Rukhmabai was being kept away because she could assert the rights to the property of her father.

Dadaji Bhikaji vs. Rukhmabai, 1885 with Bhikaji seeking "restitution of conjugal rights" came up for hearing and the judgement was passed by Justice Robert Hill Pinhey. Pinhey stated that English precedents on restitution did not apply here as the English law was meant to be applied on consenting mature adults. He found fault with the English law cases and found no precedent in Hindu law. He declared that Rukhmabai had been wed in her "helpless infancy" and that he could not compel a young lady. Pinhey retired after this last case and in 1886 the case came up for retrial. Rukhmabai's counsels included J.D. Inverarity Jr. and Telang. There were outcries from various sections of society while it was praised by others. Some Hindus claimed that the law did not respect the sanctity of Hindu customs when in fact Pinhey did. Strong criticism of Pinhey's decision came from the Native Opinion, an Anglo-Marathi weekly run by Vishwanath Narayan Mandlik (1833–89) who supported Dadaji. A Poona weekly run by Lokamanya Balgangadhar Tilak, the Mahratta, wrote that Justice Pinhey did not understand the spirit of Hindu laws and that he sought reform by "violent means". In the meantime, a series of articles in the Times of India written under the pen-name of a Hindu Lady had through the course of the case (and before it) caused public reactions and it was revealed that the author was none other than Rukhmabai. One of the witnesses in the case, K.R. Kirtikar (1847-1919), formerly a student of Sakharam Arjun, claimed that the identity did not matter in the case. Kirtikar however was in support of Dadaji. The public debate revolved around multiple points of contention - Hindu versus English Law, reform from the inside versus outside, whether ancient customs deserved respect or not and so on. An appeal against the first case was made on 18 March 1886 and it was upheld by Chief Justice Sir Charles Sargent and Justice. The case was handled by Justice Farran on 4 March 1887 made using interpretations of Hindu laws went in the other direction and Rukhmabai was ordered to go to live with her husband or face six months of imprisonment. Rukhmabai bravely wrote that she would rather have the maximum penalty than obey the verdict. This caused further upheaval and debate. Balgangadhar Tilak wrote in the Kesari that Rukhmabai's defiance was the result of an English education and declared that Hinduism was in danger.Max Müller wrote that the legal route was not the solution to the problem shown by Rukhmabai's case and stated that it was Rukhmabai's education that had made her the best judge of her own choices.

...
Wikipedia