The matter came before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court after the petitioner, a woman whose marriage had deteriorated, filed a writ petition seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy which was then thirteen weeks old. She invoked the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, contending that the statute does not require the consent of a spouse for a lawful termination.
The estranged husband, although named as a respondent, did not file any appearance or affidavit in the proceedings and remained unrepresented throughout the hearing. The bench, presided over by Justice Sandeep N Bhatt, noted the husband’s non‑appearance and considered whether his absence could affect the maintainability of the petition.
During the hearing the bench observed that, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the law does not mandate the procurement of spousal consent as a precondition for granting permission to terminate a pregnancy. Justice Bhatt stated, “as such there is no need to obtain any further permission from this Court, however, considering …” The bench proceeded to explain that the statutory framework vests the decision‑making authority in the pregnant woman and the registered medical practitioner, and that the court’s role is limited to ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.
Justice Bhatt further remarked that the estranged husband’s lack of representation did not create a legal impediment to the petitioner’s claim. The court emphasized that the Act’s purpose is to protect the woman’s health and reproductive autonomy, and that the absence of a spouse’s consent cannot be construed as a bar to relief when the statutory conditions are satisfied.
Having considered the petitioner’s affidavit, the medical opinion attached to the petition, and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the bench concluded that all statutory prerequisites for a lawful termination had been met. Accordingly, the court directed that the petitioner may proceed with the termination of her pregnancy without obtaining any additional judicial authorization.
The operative order of the court reads: “The petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to terminate her thirteen‑week pregnancy in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. No further permission from this Court is required.”
By allowing the petition despite the husband’s non‑representation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that spousal consent is not a prerequisite under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The decision underscores the statutory intent to place the decision‑making authority with the woman and her medical adviser, and it clarifies that a spouse’s failure to appear or be represented does not affect the maintainability of a petition seeking termination of pregnancy.
The ruling adds to the growing body of jurisprudence from various High Courts that interpret the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as safeguarding a woman’s right to reproductive choice without imposing spousal consent requirements. It also serves as a procedural reminder that parties who choose not to participate in proceedings cannot obstruct the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under the Act.