Bombay High Court Allows 32-Year-Old Woman for Termination of 26-Week Pregnancy

Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The high court was hearing the plea filed by the woman seeking direction for the constitution of a Medical Board for examining the fetus

A division bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Gauri Godse, recently granted permission to a 32-year-old woman to terminate her 26-week pregnancy.

The court was hearing the plea filed by the woman, in which she requested the formation of a Medical Board to assess the fetal anomalies. Following the receipt of the board's report, she sought permission to terminate her pregnancy.

On August 23rd, the division bench issued an order directing the Dean of Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai,  to form a Medical Board according to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, read with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to evaluate the woman's condition.

Subsequently, the Medical Board was established and after examining the woman, it presented its findings to the bench.

The board's report stated that the petitioner was physically and mentally suitable for terminating her pregnancy. Based on this assessment, the bench, in its August 25th order, permitted the petitioner to proceed with the termination of her pregnancy at a hospital of her choosing.

“Considering the aforesaid, we allow the petitioner to go to any hospital of her choice, having adequate facilities for conducting the said procedure, expeditiously,” the bench said.

Nonetheless, the bench in its order recorded that if the woman gives birth to a live child and does not wish to keep the child then the state government would step in and take care of the child.

“However, in the event, the petitioner gives birth to a live child and if the petitioner does not wish to keep the child, then the State of Maharashtra shall step in and take care of the well being of the child, on petitioner handing over the child to the State of Maharashtra,” the bench recorded.

The bench also now kept the matter for compliance on 30th August.

Case title: XYZ vs State of Maharashtra