The Supreme Court on Thursday urged an estranged couple to give their six-month-old marriage another chance before it decides whether to allow the wife’s plea to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, cautioning that an irreversible decision taken amid marital discord could leave both with a lifetime of regret if they reconcile later.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna, R Mahadevan and DK Upadhyaya asked the husband to reach out to his wife, who is staying with her parents after alleging mental harassment, and give her the confidence and security needed to carry the pregnancy to term. The court, however, made clear that the decision on termination remained before it, and asked the couple to discuss their differences and report back on Monday.
“What concerns us is that she should not regret,” the bench told the woman’s counsel, stressing that the consequences of terminating a pregnancy could extend well beyond the immediate period. “It is an irreversible situation if there is a regret after terminating the pregnancy. That trauma can go well beyond nine months,” it observed.
The intervention came after the Bombay high court on October 26 dismissed the woman’s plea for termination, holding that her case did not fall within the categories permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Rules. The high court noted that the couple remained married, the foetus showed no congenital anomalies and the allegations of force, continuous mental cruelty and harassment had not been established to allow the termination as per the MTP laws.
{{/usCountry}}The intervention came after the Bombay high court on October 26 dismissed the woman’s plea for termination, holding that her case did not fall within the categories permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Rules. The high court noted that the couple remained married, the foetus showed no congenital anomalies and the allegations of force, continuous mental cruelty and harassment had not been established to allow the termination as per the MTP laws.
{{/usCountry}}The woman, in her mid-30s and in her first pregnancy, told the Supreme Court that she had left the matrimonial home after being mentally harassed and tortured. Her counsel also relied on a medical board’s report that recorded her fragile psychological state and warned that her mental agony could worsen if the pregnancy continued.
The medical board, constituted by Grant Government Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals in Mumbai, had opined that the pregnancy could be terminated, noting that the woman was 24 weeks pregnant when examined on October 22 and that the foetus had no congenital anomalies. It also warned that the delivered baby might require neonatal intensive care and that the prognosis might not remain good despite such care.
The bench, however, sought to look beyond the medical and legal questions to the possibility of the couple repairing their relationship. It noted that the husband had expressed his willingness to resume cohabitation and take responsibility for both his wife and the child.
“There is some mental pressure in every relationship. We are looking at the future,” remarked the bench when the woman’s counsel referred to the mental distress she had allegedly suffered. It added that the case was not one involving sexual assault, where different considerations could arise.
The woman’s counsel resisted relying on the husband’s assurances alone, seeking some form of security, including monetary protection, before the matter was deferred. In response, the bench asked the husband’s lawyer to ensure that he offered more than verbal assurances.
“You will have to give us the assurance that you will live together and that she and the child will be taken care of,” said the bench, asking the husband to visit the woman’s parental home or meet her at a neutral place, persuade her and give her confidence during the pregnancy.
The husband’s lawyer offered to file an undertaking to maintain and care for both. He also told the court that the woman had left the matrimonial home on August 27 and that cases were filed within two weeks. The wife, however, has alleged mental harassment and has sought termination of the pregnancy.
“Why lose this child because of difference of opinion that you say is the chief cause for you to separate? The mother and the foetus are healthy. Consider all this,” the bench told the husband’s counsel.
The bench also pointed to the short duration of the marriage, solemnised in May this year, and the fact that the couple had separated within months. “Five months into marriage, you have filed for divorce when it is usually called a ‘honeymoon period’ for a couple,” remarked the bench, adding that its intervention was intended to serve the interests of both, particularly the woman.
At the same time, the bench acknowledged the uncertainty surrounding any reconciliation after childbirth. “Let us hope she delivers the child and there is no reconciliation after the baby is born. What happens then? She will be left with a child to take care of all her affairs and the child will also be there,” it observed, underscoring the need for the husband to assume concrete responsibility.
The high court in its order had held that the woman’s strained relationship with her husband did not, by itself, bring her within the statutory grounds for termination up to 24 weeks. It relied on Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, which lists categories of women eligible for termination during that period, including cases involving a change in marital status during an ongoing pregnancy, such as widowhood or divorce. The high court noted that the couple’s marriage subsisted and that the woman had not pleaded a change in marital status.
The high court also rejected the argument that the woman’s reproductive freedom, recognised by the Supreme Court in X Vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (2023), could take the case beyond the statutory framework governing termination.