Can a marriage that has turned sour, by itself, justify ending a pregnancy under the MTP Rules? The Allahabad High Court has said no, holding that marital estrangement is not the change of marital status the Rules contemplate, and dismissing a married woman’s plea to terminate her pregnancy of about 17 weeks.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Prayagraj: The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a 24-year-old married woman seeking a direction to the Chief Medical Officer to permit the medical termination of her pregnancy, holding that marital estrangement cannot by itself be treated as a ground under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, as amended in 2021, and that no material had been placed to show grave injury to her mental health [X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
The judgment of October 6, 2026 was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla. The petitioner has been anonymised.
No new category under Rule 3B(c)
The petitioner’s case was that her estrangement from her husband should be read into Rule 3B(c), which covers a change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy, such as widowhood and divorce. The Bench refused to stretch the provision that far. Ordinary matrimonial differences, it said, are not the same as a change of marital status, and an “estranged relationship” category could not be carved out by interpretation:
“An entirely new or distinct category cannot be introduced under the guise of interpretation, as that would amount to adding to or rewriting the rule itself.”
Mental health is wider, but proof is still needed
The Bench accepted that “mental health” is not confined to a clinically diagnosed illness, and that a woman’s “actual or reasonably foreseeable environment, including her social and economic circumstances, may be relevant” in judging whether continuing a pregnancy would gravely injure her mental health. What was missing here, it found, was any material showing a deterioration in her mental health linked to the pregnancy itself.
Such an apprehension, the Court said, could not rest merely on the “sole desire and whims” of the person seeking termination. In an appropriate case, cruelty and its effect on mental health would have to be shown by “overwhelming evidence” and “cogent, credible and objectively assessable material”. Summing up, the Bench held:
“The law, in its strict sense, only allows unwanted pregnancies at the inception to be terminated, and in the case in hand, neither the marital status has changed nor unimpeachable evidence of cruelty produced that might convince us to take the drastic and exterminatory decision for the ending of a life which has yet to come in the world.”
It added that medical termination is “not the only panacea” for emotional distress arising out of marital discord.
What the petitioner alleged, and the husband’s reply
The petitioner married a police constable on May 3, 2026. According to her petition, the husband suspected her character and assaulted her, allegedly forced her to consume phenyl on July 27 and assaulted her badly again on August 28. She said her attempt to lodge an FIR did not succeed and that the husband threatened to lodge a counter-FIR if she sought a termination. She said she had initially been willing to continue the pregnancy, but it became unwanted because of the treatment she alleged, and that she is unemployed and dependent on her parents.
The husband disputed the allegations, attributed the trouble to a misunderstanding and told the Court he was willing to support the mother and the child. He earns about Rs. 40,000 a month. The pregnancy was then about 17 weeks and two days, with no abnormality detected. The allegations of cruelty have not been tested in any proceeding.
Support and counselling ordered
While declining to direct the Chief Medical Officer to permit termination, the Bench ordered that Rs. 12,000 a month be deducted from the husband’s salary and transferred to the petitioner to meet her medical bills and to support the child. It also directed that she be given free marital counselling.
The Court made clear that its observations on the allegations of domestic violence will not prejudice any proceedings before a Magistrate.
Case Details: X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others | Court: Allahabad High Court | Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla | Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026 | Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; Rs. 12,000 a month from the husband’s salary for medical expenses and child support; free marital counselling directed.
Appearances: Advocate Vindeshwari Prasad for the petitioner; Additional Chief Standing Counsel Girijesh Kumar Tripathi for respondents 1 and 2; Advocate Majahar Ali for the respondent-husband.