Bombay High Court Rejects Woman's Plea To Terminate 24-Week Pregnancy, Says Marital Discord Not Irreconcilable

The Bombay High Court has rejected a 34-year-old woman's plea to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, observing that the marital discord between her and her husband did not appear to be serious or irreconcilable.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna refused to grant any relief to the woman, who contended in her petition that she was subjected to coercive, non-consensual sexual conduct, causing her immense mental agony, humiliation and distress.

On October 23, the bench while hearing the matter, had suggested the couple to 'settle the matter outside the court' however, since no settlement could be reached, a detailed order was passed on October 26. 

The  judges noted the submission of the husband, who on oath said that  he wished to continue the matrimonial relationship with the Petitioner and that he is ready and willing to reside with her with dignity and respect. The judges further noted that the husband was not in favour of termination of the pregnancy and that he was willing to extend full support to the Wife and further that he is equally ready and willing to take care of the child.

"On the basis of facts that have emerged before us, we gather an impression that the dispute/discord between the Petitioner and her Husband does not appear to be of a serious or irreconcilable nature, at this stage. The Husband has stated on oath that he is not in favour of termination of the pregnancy. He is more than willing to maintain and reside with the Wife with utmost dignity and respect, and take complete care of the to be born child as well," the judges observed. 

Further the judges noted that the medical report did not indicate any congenital anomalies. The bench noted that the petitioner has also not pleaded a case of 'change in her marital status' which is one of the grounds for allowing abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. 

"The record bears out that the marriage between the Petitioner and her husband still persist. There is no dispute with regard to parenthood of the child to be born. At this juncture, there appears to be no finding of any Court or otherwise as to the allegations of force, or continuous mental cruelty and or harassment at the behest of her husband. The Petition before us, project a situation where the case of the Petitioner is in the realm of allegations. Even otherwise, Section 3 of the MTP Act read with Rule 3-B does not contemplate a situation which would render the Petitioner eligible under the statutory scheme and framework of the MTP Act and Rules," the judges held. 

When the petitioner cited some judgments emphasising on the reproductive freedom of a woman, the bench clarified that the same cannot go beyond the statutory framework provided under the Act and Rules and ought to be examined on the touchstone of the facts and circumstances of each case.

"In view thereof, the case at hand being couched in different facts and circumstances, such submission would lend no assistance to the Petitioner. Though we express sympathy for the Petitioner, in the exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no relief as prayed for can be accorded to the Petitioner," the judges said while dismissing the plea.

With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea.

Appearance: 

Advocates Advait Shukla and Prem Dubey appeared for the Petitioner.

Assistant Government Pleader Fatima Lakadawala represented the State.

Advocates OP Dubey and BB Dubey represented the Husband.