The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy due to marital discord falls within the statutory protection of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, and does not constitute an offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside a trial court’s order summoning a woman for the offence of causing miscarriage, holding that forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy violates her bodily integrity and aggravates mental trauma.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by the Respondent (husband) against his wife (the Petitioner) and her family members. The couple married on April 19, 2022, according to Hindu rites.
The complainant alleged that the accused persons had emotionally manipulated him into spending excessive amounts on the wedding and engagement. He further alleged that after the marriage, the Petitioner, in connivance with her family, made financial demands and threatened to divorce him. The specific allegation leading to the present legal battle was that on October 9, 2022, the Petitioner underwent a medical termination of her 14-week pregnancy without the complainant’s consent.
The complainant asserted that the termination was illegal and filed a complaint for offences under Sections 182/192/195/196/312/379/384/406/420/500/506/34/120B of the IPC. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Delhi, summoned the Petitioner and her family members.
Upon revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ-04), Delhi, vide Order dated August 13, 2025, discharged the family members and the Petitioner for other offences but upheld the summoning of the Petitioner solely for the offence punishable under Section 312 IPC (Causing miscarriage). The Petitioner challenged this order before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the Petitioner argued that the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 312 IPC were entirely absent. It was submitted that the Petitioner had voluntarily undergone the procedure in a registered hospital under qualified medical supervision, in strict accordance with the MTP Act. The termination was performed within the statutory limit of less than 20 weeks.
The Petitioner contended that her “reproductive autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been erroneously criminalised.” She argued that she was in distress due to mental cruelty at the matrimonial home and was not in a position to safely raise a child in such an “abusive and unstable environment.”
Conversely, the Respondent/Complainant argued that at the time the Petitioner gave her consent for the pregnancy, they were living together, and there was no marital discord. He contended that the Petitioner’s decision to terminate the pregnancy without his consent amounted to an offence, and the justification of marital discord was an afterthought that manifested only after she left the matrimonial home.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the interplay between Section 312 IPC and the provisions of the MTP Act. The Court observed that under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, a pregnancy not exceeding 20 weeks may be terminated if registered medical practitioners are of the opinion that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of “grave injury to her physical or mental health.”
On Mental Health and Marital Discord: The Court gave an expansive interpretation to the term “mental health,” emphasizing that it must be assessed in terms of the woman’s “actual or reasonable foreseeable environment” as per Section 3(3) of the MTP Act.
“The harsh reality of this misogynistic world cannot be ignored while considering the mental trauma of a woman facing marital discord, which gets compounded many times if she is pregnant. Not only is she left to fend for herself, but almost always is left to shoulder the responsibility of bringing up a child single handedly, with no support forth coming from any source. It is only a woman who suffers. Such pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma.”
The Court rejected the Respondent’s argument that marital discord must be fully manifested or litigation commenced to be a valid ground. The Court noted that the medical documents (OPD Card dated August 16, 2022) recorded the Petitioner’s distress and her intention to seek divorce.
“The very fact that the woman was stressed and felt that there was a marital discord, created a situation where such stress was likely to impact her mental health and therefore, she was competent to seek her abortion.”
On Reproductive Autonomy: Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) and X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (2023), the High Court reiterated that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21.
“If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents the violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health.”
The Court further clarified that the MTP Act does not require the husband’s consent for the termination of pregnancy. The Court stated that the “unborn foetus cannot be put on a higher pedestal than the right of a living woman.”
Decision
The High Court held that the Petitioner’s action of terminating the pregnancy was protected under the MTP Act and did not constitute an offence under Section 312 IPC.
“In the light of aforesaid discussion, when the Apex Court in its aforementioned judgments, has recognized the autonomy of a woman to seek abortion in the situation of a marital discord which can impact her mental health, and also the provision of Section 3 MTP Act and the Rules framed therein, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC was committed by the Petitioner.”
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, the Order of the learned ASJ was set aside, and the Petitioner was discharged.
