Family’s financial condition, woman’s unpreparedness no grounds to allow termination of pregnancy: HC

In a significant order, the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by a 39-year-old woman to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy, after

In a significant order, the Bombay high court (HC) on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by a 39-year-old woman to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy, after it observed that the financial condition of a family or the mental unpreparedness of a woman to be a mother cannot be the grounds to allow termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.

HT Image

The woman, who is 24-weeks pregnant, moved HC stating that she learnt of her pregnancy belatedly, on May 14, when she underwent a sonography. She claimed that the pregnancy occurred owing to the failure of the contraceptive method and she did not suspect that she was pregnant because she has a history of irregular menstruation, owing to which the pregnancy was detected late.

She added that the pregnancy at the age of 39 may lead to various complications in her life and cause her physical and mental agony. The woman also claimed that she and her family were not in the financial condition nor was she mentally prepared to become a mother under the given circumstances.

The bench of justice Ujjal Bhuyan and justice Riyaz Chagla, however, refused to accept the grounds put forth by the woman from Ratnagiri district.

“We are of the considered view that the reasons for medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 20 weeks viz. that the petitioner and her family are in no condition financially and/or that the petitioner would be of an advanced age of 39 years to be mentally prepared to be a mother are not valid grounds for termination of pregnancy under the said (MTP) Act,” said the bench.

Failure of contraceptive method in under certain circumstances is a valid ground for MTP under the Act, but the bench said it was not applicable to the woman. In this regard, the bench accepted the arguments advanced by additional government pleader MP Thakur that the ground will be available only to a married woman who already has a child and the pregnancy has occurred as a result of failure of any device or method used by the married woman for limiting the number of children. The anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman, but the petitioner, although married has no child, and hence there can be no limiting the number of children.

The petitioner relied in a Supreme Court judgment observing that a pregnant woman has a personal autonomy to exercise her reproductive choice and terminate her pregnancy. But the bench found the reliance misplaced. It clarified that the right to reproductive choice “would necessarily be exercisable in terms of section 3 of the MTP Act, that is, within the statutory limit (of 12 to 20 week’s) provided thereunder.”