A woman’s claim that her husband concealed a prior marriage did not qualify her for abortion beyond 24 weeks, Bombay High Court rules

The Petitioner, aged 33, alleged that Respondent No. 2 concealed his prior marriage before marrying her on 16 February 2025, and that she later discovered information suggesting the concealment.

She also alleged mental and physical harassment and stated that she left the matrimonial home.

After a sonography on 26 July 2026, she learned that she was pregnant; her petition, filed on 10 August 2026, initially referred to a gestational age of 13 weeks and 2 days.

At the hearing on 6 October 2026, counsel submitted that the pregnancy was approximately 24 weeks and sought referral to a Medical Board and permission to terminate it, relying on the alleged deception and resulting mental trauma.

The Court directed that the Petitioner’s name be anonymised.

Whether, on the facts presented, the Petitioner could be permitted to terminate her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Rules framed under it.

Whether the alleged deception and resulting mental trauma brought the Petitioner within an applicable statutory ground or eligibility category for termination.

Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits termination within the prescribed gestational limit where continuation of the pregnancy involves a risk to the pregnant woman’s life, grave injury to her physical or mental health, or a substantial risk of serious physical or mental abnormality in the child if born.

The statutory explanations deem specified anguish—including anguish from a pregnancy alleged to have been caused by rape, or from contraceptive failure—to constitute grave injury to mental health.

Section 3(2-B) disapplies the gestational limit where termination is necessitated by substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.

Rule 3-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 identifies categories of women eligible for termination under Section 3(2)(b) up to 24 weeks, including survivors of sexual assault, rape or incest; minors; women whose marital status changes during pregnancy by widowhood or divorce; and the other specified categories.

The Court stated that relief could not exceed the statute’s scope.

The Court found that the Petitioner had neither pleaded nor contended that her marital status had changed by widowhood or divorce, and that she did not fall within any other category listed in Rule 3-B.

Her case rested on alleged fraud by her husband and the resulting mental trauma; the Court noted that the alleged fraud had not been judicially established.

It also observed that the case did not involve a foetal abnormality and concluded that Section 3 read with Rule 3-B did not provide an applicable category for the circumstances presented.

Although it empathised with the Petitioner, the Court held that it could not grant relief beyond the statutory framework.

It rejected the prayers, dismissed the writ petition and discharged the Rule.