Abortion beyond 24 weeks was refused to a woman who says her husband hid an earlier marriage; the Bombay High Court held that “relief cannot exceed the four corners of statute”.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Mumbai: Turning down a 33-year-old married woman’s plea to have her pregnancy medically terminated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, because her husband had allegedly concealed a previous marriage, the Bombay High Court dismissed her writ petition. The Court held that she fell within no category of eligibility under Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003, and that relief cannot go beyond the statute [Mrs. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Another].
A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan delivered the judgment on October 6, 2026; Justice Chavan authored it. The Registry was directed to anonymise the petitioner’s name in the judgment, and this report withholds the identity of the parties accordingly.
How the petitioner put her case
The petitioner said she agreed to the marriage on February 16, 2025 on the strength of her husband’s representation. She alleged that he had hidden an earlier marriage, that she later came across documents pointing to it, and that she faced continuous mental and physical harassment, which made her leave the matrimonial home. These are the petitioner’s allegations; the Court did not adjudicate them.
A sonography on July 26, 2026 had shown a gestational age of 13 weeks and 2 days. She filed the petition on August 10, 2026, and it was circulated before the Bench on October 6, 2026. Her counsel told the Court that the gestational age by then was approximately 24 weeks, which meant the limit under the Act had been crossed, and asked that she be referred to the Medical Board constituted under the Act.
The single argument pressed was that discovering the alleged fraud had caused her severe mental trauma and a loss of trust in the marriage, that she is an adult woman with reproductive autonomy, and that continuing the pregnancy was likely to cause grave injury to her mental health. She relied on Explanation I to Section 3(2) of the Act and on Rule 3-B of the Rules.
Where the law drew the line
It is trite law that relief cannot exceed the four corners of statute. Although, we empathise with the predicament of the Petitioner, unfortunately, in the facts of the present case, we see no legal relief for her under the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971.
With that, the prayers were rejected, the writ petition was dismissed and the rule discharged.
The Bench noted that Rule 3-B names the women who may seek termination up to 24 weeks: survivors of sexual assault, rape or incest, minors, women whose marital status changes during the pregnancy through widowhood or divorce, women with major physical disabilities, mentally ill women, cases of substantial foetal malformation, and women in humanitarian settings or disasters. On the record before it, the petitioner had neither pleaded nor argued any change in marital status by widowhood or divorce, and no other category covered her.
The Petitioner has neither pleaded nor contended that there is any judicial finding as to the allegations of fraud alleged by her. Thus, the contentions of the Petitioner are in the realm of allegations. It is not the case of the Petitioner that her foetus suffers from any abnormalities which would involve a risk to her life.
Reading the ruling
Past the 24-week mark, the Court read the eligibility list in Rule 3-B tightly. A plea of mental trauma, however serious as pleaded, did not succeed when it was not tied to any listed category and no finding on the alleged fraud existed.
The ruling also makes the point that allegations in a matrimonial dispute, until proved before a competent forum, cannot by themselves open the door to termination beyond the statutory window. The Court expressed no view on the truth of the allegations against the husband.
Case Title: Mrs. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Another [Writ Petition No. 13260 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan, Bombay High Court
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Mr. Narayan L. P. Mishra for the petitioner; Smt. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for the State; Mr. Rammani G. Upadhyay along with Rajeev Shukla for Respondent No. 2