Pune woman seeking abortion moves SC against HC’s ‘restrictive’ approach

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court had taken a restrictive approach of the rules under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, without addressing constitutional principles governing reproductive autonomy and risks to a pregnant woman’s mental health

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court had taken a restrictive approach of the rules under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, without addressing constitutional principles governing reproductive autonomy and risks to a pregnant woman’s mental health. This was stated by the 33-year-old Pune engineer seeking an abortion in her petition filed before the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the plea on Friday.

Past the 24th week of pregnancy, the woman had alleged that her husband had cheated her by concealing his first marriage. She also stated that she did not wish to bear the child of a bigamist who had also mentally and physically harassed her.

The woman is challenging the October 6 order of a division bench of the high court, which had refused to allow her case to be referred to a medical board constituted under the MTP Act, to seek their view on termination of her pregnancy.

In her plea, she said she had found out that she was 13 weeks pregnant on July 26 and had moved court in August. However, her case was placed before the judges for hearing only early this month. With each passing day, her pregnancy was becoming more untenable, she had told HT earlier.

“The solitary submission of the petitioner is that the mental trauma suffered by her on account of the deception… by her husband, arising out of the alleged discovery of fraud played by him is grave enough to attract the provisions of the MTP Act,” states her petition filed through her lawyers Narayan Mishra and Shantanu Krishna.

The woman, who quit her job in an IT firm two months ago, had earlier told HT, “The law won’t let me terminate my pregnancy at this stage. Bringing this child into the world is going to be very hard. I am not prepared to be a single parent. I don’t know what to do.”

Her petition before the Supreme Court added, “The Petitioner does not contend that the allegations of fraud, by themselves, automatically confer eligibility for termination beyond the statutory limits; rather, the grievance is that the relevant circumstances and their possible bearing upon her mental health ought to have been examined in the manner permitted by law.”

The woman also stated that the high court had held that there was no judicial finding regarding the alleged deception by her husband and her claims were in the realm of allegations. “The woman stated that she had approached the high court “for time-sensitive medical assessment and appropriate relief under the MTP Act, and not for a final adjudication of the matrimonial allegations against Respondent no. 2 (husband),” says her petition before the apex court.