The Delhi High Court held that forcing a woman to continue pregnancy violates bodily autonomy and aggravates mental distress. Discharging an estranged wife, it ruled abortion during marital discord was lawful, holding no offence under IPC Section 312 committed.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has stated that compelling a woman to continue her pregnancy ‘violates her bodily autonomy’ and ‘exacerbates mental distress’, while discharging an estranged wife from a criminal case initiated by her husband for terminating her 14 week pregnancy.
Highlighting a woman’s right to pursue an abortion amid marital discord, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that the petitioner wife had not committed an offense under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing miscarriage.
The judge remarked that the freedom to choose is an essential aspect of personal autonomy, noting that women have a fundamental right to control their reproductive choices.
Also Read: Can’t Force Rape Survivor to Carry Unwanted Pregnancy, Rules Bombay High Court
The court pointed out that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) does not require a woman to seek her husband’s consent for an abortion, emphasizing that a key principle of the law is concern for the potential “grave injury” to a woman’s mental and physical health.
The court stated,
“If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would be deleterious to her mental health,”
The judge further noted that the Supreme Court has recognized a woman’s right to seek an abortion in cases of marital discord that could adversely affect her mental well being. This recognition aligns with Section 3 of the MTP Act and the rules established therein, thus the petitioner could not be said to have committed an offense under Section 312 IPC.
Section 312 of IPC: Causing Miscarriage
“Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Woman’s Plea to Terminate Over 25-Week Pregnancy
Challenging a sessions court order that upheld her summons before a magistrate for the alleged offense, the petitioner contended that her reproductive autonomy, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, had been unjustly criminalized and that her rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and personal decision making were ignored.
The husband argued that since they were living together at the time of the abortion, there was no marital discord, making the MTP Act inapplicable. However, the court dismissed this argument, asserting that marital discord should not be narrowly defined as only existing after separation or litigation.
The wife’s outpatient department (OPD) card indicated she was already experiencing marital stress and had decided to separate from her husband.
Also Read:Calcutta High Court Grants Approval for Termination of 23-Week Pregnancy
Addressing what the court described as the “harsh reality of this misogynistic world,” it noted that in the case of an unplanned pregnancy, the woman often bears the full weight of the situation alone.
The judge added,
“It is only a woman who suffers. Such a pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma… There are social, financial, and other aspects immediately attached to the pregnancy of a woman, and if the pregnancy is unwarranted, it can have serious repercussions. It undoubtedly affects the mental health,”
The court also observed that according to MTP Rule 3 B(c), a woman is eligible for medical termination if her marital status changes, such as through divorce or widowhood.
This provision should be interpreted as applicable to all women experiencing a “change of material circumstances.”
Given that the woman’s stress indicated a situation of marital discord impacting her mental health, the court concluded that she was justified in seeking an abortion.