Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Woman's Plea For Abortion Despite Estranged Husband Remaining Unrepresented
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a woman's plea to terminate her 13-week-old pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, despite her estranged husband remaining unrepresented before the court. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 245]The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt directed:"...as such there is no need to obtain any further permission from this Court, however, considering...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a woman's plea to terminate her 13-week-old pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, despite her estranged husband remaining unrepresented before the court. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 245]
The bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt directed:
"...as such there is no need to obtain any further permission from this Court, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is legally wedded wife and now she does not want to continue her matrimonial relationship with her husband / respondent no. 3 and seeking termination of pregnancy. Considering the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of Hon'ble Courts, I am of the view that on any count, the permission is required to be granted".
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate pregnancy on the ground that she had separated from her husband after a marital discord and certain criminal proceedings. Although both parties had agreed to the divorce at the local police station, the husband later backed out of the arrangement.
Apprehending that her husband would legally object to the termination or that medical authorities would hesitate without his approval, she approached the court for relief. She claimed that being pregnant would inflict mental trauma while she would have to compromise her physical, emotional and socio-economic well-being.
The woman informed that despite service of notice, her husband had chosen not to appear in the proceedings. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was 13 weeks pregnant, which is within the statutory limits allowing termination.
The counsel for the State, referred to the case of X vs Principal Secretary, which affirmed a woman's right to reproductive autonomy. The counsel stated that although notice was issued to her husband, his presence is not required, and his consent is insignificant.
The court noted that the woman, being 13 weeks pregnant, prima facie did not need its indulgence, as any medical practitioner could carry out the process of termination as permissible under Section 3 of the MTP Act.
The court referred to its judgment in Writ Petition No. 13893 of 2023, which discussed the case of XXX v Union of India, wherein it was stated that a woman can claim a 'change of circumstances' like marital status for seeking medical termination of pregnancy.
Thus, the bench allowed the petition and directed:
"In the present case, as such the pregnancy is not related to any criminal offence or criminal proceeding, therefore, that aspect is not required to be taken into consideration. The permission for termination of pregnancy is required to be granted as prayed in the present petition".
Case Title: UA v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-22392-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 245
For Petitioner: Advocate Govind Pal Singh Songara
For State: Government Advocate Pranjali Yajurvedi