Allahabad High Court denies abortion plea over alleged marital cruelty, orders husband to pay ₹12,000 monthly for the woman and child

The petitioner, a 24-year-old married woman, sought a mandamus directing the Chief Medical Officer, Bhadohi, to arrange termination of her pregnancy.

She alleged that her husband and in-laws had subjected her to cruelty and assault, causing mental distress, and that she lacked the financial means to raise the child.

Her husband denied the allegations, maintained that the dispute was a misunderstanding, and offered to support her and the child.

The petitioner’s request for termination was before the High Court under Article 226

Whether the petitioner’s alleged cruelty, marital discord and resulting mental distress established a statutory basis for termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Whether an estranged relationship or other change in marital circumstances could fall within Rule 3B(c), beyond the stated examples of widowhood and divorce

Whether the Court should direct termination under Article 226 on the material before it, notwithstanding the absence of foetal abnormality and the husband’s offer of financial support

Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits termination subject to its gestational limits and the prescribed medical opinion where continuation of pregnancy would risk the woman’s life or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there is a substantial risk of serious foetal abnormality;

Section 3(3) makes the woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment relevant to assessing injury to health, and Section 3(2B) addresses termination beyond the usual limits where substantial foetal abnormality is diagnosed by a Medical Board

Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 identifies a change in marital status during pregnancy, with widowhood and divorce given as examples, as a category eligible for termination up to 24 weeks.

Relying on X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, the Court recognised that mental health is broader than the absence of diagnosed mental illness and that reproductive autonomy is protected under Article 21, but held that termination must remain within the statutory scheme

The Court accepted that persistent, aggravated cruelty could be relevant to a woman’s mental health and, in an appropriate case, could support termination; however, it considered the allegations here unsubstantiated by sufficiently cogent material and found no evidence establishing the grave injury required by Section 3

It held that ordinary marital discord or an estranged relationship does not, without circumstances equivalent to permanent abandonment or a similarly profound change, amount to a change in marital status under Rule 3B(c)

The Court noted that no domestic-violence proceedings had been initiated, the petitioner was residing with her parents, no foetal abnormality had been detected, and her husband had offered financial and medical support

On that record, the Court found that the statutory grounds for termination had not been established

It directed the Chief Medical Officer, Bhadohi, to arrange marital counselling for the petitioner without cost and to ensure that any major medical expenditure was met by a government hospital

It also directed the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, to arrange deduction of ₹12,000 per month from the husband’s salary for remittance to the petitioner, subject to her providing her bank details