Keywords: – HighCourt, Abortion, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, Pregnancy.
The Chhattisgarh High Court recently ruled that the termination of a pregnancy cannot be permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act solely based on a failed marriage or a troubled relationship between a husband and wife. In the case of XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh, Justice P Sam Koshy denied a 29-year-old woman’s request for an abortion and further stated that abortion is considered a criminal act in India.
“The relationship of the petitioner getting strained with the husband or if the marriage life for some reason gets derailed, are not grounds which are permissible under Section 3 of the Act 1971,” the Court’s order stated.
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner, a woman, had not become pregnant as a result of any sexual crime committed against her, nor without her consent or knowledge. The Court considered the fact that the petitioner was married and had not claimed that someone other than her husband was responsible for the pregnancy. The couple had married in November 2022, but their relationship had deteriorated, prompting the wife to seek the High Court’s permission to terminate the pregnancy.
The judge remarked that if the Court were to entertain such requests for pregnancy termination based on such circumstances, it would undermine the original purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971. The Court emphasized that abortion should only be performed in “grave” situations.
“In India, abortion is considered to be a crime. The medical practitioners are restrained from carrying out abortion unless until the situation gravely requires the pregnant lady to undergo abortion. That too is only on the advice of a qualified medical practitioner, who upon medically examining the pregnant lady, reaches to the conclusion that there is an apparent danger to the life or risk to the physical and mental health of the pregnant lady,” the order stated.
The medical termination of pregnancy is also permissible in cases where there is a significant likelihood that the child, if born, would experience severe deformities and illnesses.
Based on these remarks, the Bench rejected the petition.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Ritesh Verma, while Advocate Pawan Kesharwani represented the State.
Written by- Mubashara Fatima, College name- Unity PG and Law College Semester- 6th, intern under Legal Vidhiya
