The Allahabad High Court has rejected a 24-year-old married woman’s request to terminate her approximately 20-week pregnancy despite her allegations of physical abuse and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws. The court directed the authorities to provide free marital counselling to the couple and ordered a monthly deduction of ₹12,000 from the husband’s salary to meet the woman’s expenses.
A division bench of Justice J J Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, in its October 5 ruling, acknowledged the woman’s right to bodily autonomy and reproductive choice but held that the circumstances presented before it did not justify medical termination of the pregnancy.
The bench observed that emotional distress arising from matrimonial disputes could be addressed through appropriate counselling and that abortion was not necessarily the solution to such difficulties.
Court Finds Insufficient Evidence of Serious Health Risk
While examining the petition, the High Court stressed the need to balance reproductive autonomy with considerations concerning the developing foetus and the pregnant woman’s physical and mental well-being.
The judges found insufficient material to establish that the alleged domestic violence had placed the petitioner in circumstances where continuing the pregnancy would seriously endanger her physical or mental health.
The court also referred to Mother Teresa’s 1979 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, in which she described abortion as a war against the child and emphasised the sanctity of unborn life.
According to the bench, marital disagreements and the resulting psychological distress could be addressed through clinical or matrimonial counselling, including services available at government institutions.
Woman Cites Assault, Harassment and Financial Difficulties
The petitioner married a police constable in May 2026. She subsequently approached the High Court seeking permission to end her pregnancy, stating that her relationship with her husband had deteriorated because of repeated allegations about her character and incidents of assault.
She alleged that her husband and his family subjected her to physical and mental cruelty. She further claimed that her husband had threatened to initiate legal proceedings against her if she terminated the pregnancy.
Although she had initially intended to continue the pregnancy, the woman submitted that her experiences after marriage had changed her decision and left her mentally unwilling to carry it to term.
Represented by advocate Ravi Kesharwani, she asserted that her status as an adult entitled her to independently decide whether to continue the pregnancy under her rights to bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
The petitioner also raised concerns about her financial position. She told the court that she was unemployed, relied on her parents for support and lacked the resources necessary for childbirth and raising a child.
Husband Disputes Allegations of Cruelty
Opposing the petition, the husband denied the allegations and maintained that the dispute arose from a minor misunderstanding between the couple.
He contested the claims concerning physical assault, cruelty, forcible administration of phenyl and police inaction, arguing that they were unsupported by sufficient evidence.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that the husband earned approximately ₹40,000 per month and was willing to provide financial assistance to his wife and their child.
He also expressed willingness to contribute ₹12,000 monthly towards her medical treatment and care.
Court Directs Counselling and Monthly Financial Support
Addressing the petitioner’s financial concerns, the High Court accepted that her difficulties deserved consideration. However, it noted that her husband had an income and had agreed to take responsibility for supporting her and the child.
The bench concluded that financial hardship, in the circumstances presented, was not sufficient to treat a pregnancy arising during marriage as unwanted for the purpose of granting the requested termination.
The court consequently declined to permit the abortion and directed the authorities to arrange free matrimonial counselling for the couple.
It further ordered that ₹12,000 be deducted every month from the husband’s salary to provide financial support to the petitioner.
