The Supreme Court on Monday held that a marital dispute or an exchange of harsh words between spouses cannot, by itself, constitute a valid ground for seeking termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan made the observation while hearing a plea by a woman seeking to abort her 25-week pregnancy, her first, citing mental trauma arising from allegations made by her husband.
Why did the Supreme Court refuse to allow termination of a 25-week pregnancy?
The court refused termination because the foetus was found healthy, the woman was medically fit, and no statutory ground under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act existed; the plea rested solely on marital discord and mental trauma, which the bench held insufficient.
The woman's counsel submitted that the husband had threatened to end the marriage if she proceeded with the termination and had allegedly maligned her character on a family WhatsApp group by accusing her of an illegitimate relationship. The counsel argued that continuing the pregnancy would cause immense mental trauma to the woman and potentially affect the child, adding that she no longer wished to continue the marriage.
The husband's counsel denied circulating any defamatory WhatsApp messages but stated he possessed evidence against the wife which he had withheld in the interest of preserving the relationship. The bench responded that such allegations could be withdrawn if the husband was willing to apologise, stressing that the unborn child belonged to both parties and that spousal allegations could not justify terminating a pregnancy.
During the hearing, the bench remarked that the couple's differences had snowballed into a situation where the woman sought to end her first pregnancy without any medical reason. Justice Nagarathna observed that ego appeared to be driving the decision and questioned whether every marital disagreement should lead to termination of pregnancy. The bench underlined that the parties remained married and that the dispute had not altered their marital status, distinguishing the case from situations involving sexual assault, rape, or divorce.
The court noted that a medical board constituted by Grant Government Medical College and Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, had recorded the woman's fragile psychological state and opined that termination could be undertaken, though it cautioned that the baby might require neonatal intensive care with a guarded prognosis. However, the bench emphasised that the foetus was healthy and the woman medically fit, and that no medical ground warranted termination.
The Bombay High Court had dismissed the woman's plea on 26 October, holding that the case did not fall within the statutory categories permitting termination up to 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Rules. The High Court noted that the couple remained married, the foetus had no congenital anomalies, and the allegations of force, continuous mental cruelty, and harassment had not been established.
Following the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had urged the estranged couple to give their six-month-old marriage another chance and asked the husband to assure the wife, who had been staying with her parents since August, that she and the child would be cared for. On Monday, the bench directed the husband to file an affidavit withdrawing all allegations made against his wife in any form—oral, written, or digital—and to tender a public apology on the family WhatsApp group. The matter has been posted for 4 November for compliance.
Forum | Finding |
|---|---|
Medical Board (Grant Medical College & JJ Hospital) | Woman in fragile psychological state; termination possible but baby may need NICU with poor prognosis. |
Bombay High Court | Dismissed plea; no statutory ground under MTP Act; couple married; foetus healthy; allegations unproven. |
Supreme Court | Refused termination; marital dispute not a ground; directed husband to withdraw allegations and apologise. |
The bench reiterated that spouses must be able to withstand differences in a relationship and that harsh words or abusive language by a husband or in-laws should not automatically result in termination of pregnancy. The court's order reflects a strict interpretation of the statutory framework under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, limiting termination beyond 24 weeks to specified medical grounds and declining to expand the scope to include marital discord or mental trauma absent medical indication.