Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula, granted relief to a woman petitioner, allowing her to terminate her pregnancy of  22 weeks under Sections 3(2)(b) and 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act), read with Rule 3(B)(c) of the MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021. 

The petitioner stated that her husband, whom she had married in 2016 and with whom she had a 7 year old daughter, had deserted her and she was now a single mother who was taking care of her child. 

However, she was in a live-in relationship resulting in a pregnancy, which she only became aware of at an advanced stage, i.e. 21 weeks and 4 days, due to her irregular menstrual cycle. The woman further stated that she was already undergoing considerable financial hardships in bringing up her daughter and that she could not raise another child, particularly due to the social stigma associated with live-in relationships. It was also submitted before the court that her live-in partner was no longer cohabiting with her and was not traceable. 

She had to seek recourse in the court since the doctors whom she approached refused to terminate her pregnancy, on the grounds that it was above the 20 week limit mentioned under the MTP Act. 

The counsel for the petitioner, citing the case of X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, stated that the change in the woman’s marital status (on account of her husband’s desertion) places her under the category of “woman” mentioned in the MTP (Amendment)Rules 2021. The social stigma arising from live-in relationships, as well as the financial strains faced by the petitioner, would cause grave injury to her physical and mental health. 

Notably, the MTP Act, under Section 3(2)(b) allows a termination of pregnancies which exceed 20 weeks but do not exceed 24 weeks in scenarios where there has been a change in a woman’s marital circumstances and two medical practitioners are of the view that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to her life or cause grave injury to her physical and mental health. 

In the case cited by the counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court had held that the interpretation of the MTP Act and Rules must be in tandem with evolving social norms and should further the principles of social justice. “The apex court had in this case observed that “ a change in the marital status of a woman often leads to a change in her material circumstances.” This would affect their capacity to carry a child. 

The court further opined that “If Rule 3B(c) was to be interpreted such that its benefits extend only to married women, it would perpetuate the stereotype that only married women indulge in sexual intercourse, and consequently the benefits of law ought to extend only to them,” which the court observed was not “creating an artificial distinction between married and single women” that was not “constitutionally sustainable.” 

The woman’s counsel further submitted before the court that the expression “mental health” as mentioned in the MTP Act, has a wide connotation and ought to be given a purposive reading, as opined by the Supreme Court. 

Taking cognizance of the facts of the case and judicial precedents, the Delhi High Court in this case allowed the writ petition. Recognizing that the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the petitioner’s mental and physical health, the court held that the petitioner would be permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at a medical facility of her choice, given that she had understood the consequences of her decision but had still elected to go forward with it. The court also granted immunity to the doctors who had contributed their opinions in this case as part of the Medical Board, in the event of any subsequent litigation. 

The court also acknowledged that the MTP Act is intended to be a welfare legislation, aimed at providing reproductive autonomy, inextricably linked with bodily autonomy, to women, which can further be linked to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that grants individuals the right to a dignified life.

Interestingly, the Bombay High Court had also observed in July 2024, that in cases of married women becoming pregnant from men other than their husbands, the biological father does not suffer the same level of pain and social castigation as the mother.