No HC relief for woman seeking abortion on grounds of husband’s ‘deception’

The Pune resident had sought the termination on the ground that her husband had concealed his previous marriage

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by a 33-year-old married woman seeking an abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, observing that she did not fall into any of the categories or situations under which women are permitted to terminate their pregnancy up to the 24th week, under the MTP Rules, 2003.

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan said that although they “empathised with the petitioner’s predicament”, given the facts of the case, they saw no legal relief for her under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. (HT Photo)

The Pune resident had sought the termination on the ground that her husband, whom she married on February 16, 2025, had concealed his previous marriage, which fact she stumbled on after discovering certain documents. She said she left her husband’s house following alleged harassment, and subsequently on July 26, learnt that she was 13 weeks pregnant. She approached the court in August and the case was placed before the judges on October 6.

The MTP Act stipulates a period of 24 weeks as the upper limit for termination of pregnancy with the opinion of two registered medical practitioners. It also provides for the constitution of a medical board to authorise termination of pregnancies, if necessary, after diagnosis of any substantial foetal anomalies, even beyond the stipulated period of 24 weeks. Since the woman was past 24 weeks of pregnancy, her lawyer requested the court to allow her to be referred to the medical board and permitted to undergo an abortion after that.

The woman contended that the alleged fraud played by her husband had caused “severe mental trauma and loss of trust in the matrimonial relationship”. She asserted her reproductive autonomy and said that the continuation of her pregnancy was “likely to cause grave injury to her mental health, having regard to her actual and reasonably foreseeable circumstances”. (sic)

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Ashish Chavan, however, said that although they “empathised with the petitioner’s predicament”, given the facts of the case, they saw no legal relief for her under the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971.

The judges observed that the only argument of the woman was that she had suffered mental trauma on account of the “deception” by her husband. The judges observed that she had said that her discovery of the alleged fraud was “grave enough to attract the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971” but had not submitted any “judicial finding” about the allegations of fraud, and hence, “the contentions of the petitioner (woman) are in the realm of allegations”.

The MTP Rules, 2003, framed under the MTP Act, list seven categories of women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to the 24th week. These include minors, survivors of sexual assault or incest, women divorced or widowed during pregnancy, disabled or mentally ill women, and cases of foetal malformation.

The court said that the petitioner in this case did not fall into any of these categories. The MTP Act, the judges said, “does not contemplate a situation/category which renders the petitioner eligible for termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act, 1971. It is trite law that relief cannot exceed the four corners of the statute.”