A 33-year-old Pune software engineer in the 24th week of her pregnancy finds herself caught in an increasingly surreal legal battle that not only complicates her personal situation but also throws up larger questions over laws governing termination of pregnancy.
She then moved to terminate her pregnancy and approached clinics in Pune. In early July, she found out that her husband — who she met on a matrimonial website and married in 2025 — was married to another woman and their divorce was not yet finalised. Weeks later, the woman found out she was around 13 weeks pregnant. However, under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, at least two doctors need to clear an abortion when the pregnancy is beyond 12 weeks, which she was unable to procure.
She said the clinics insisted she get a court order.
In August, she moved the Bombay High Court seeking permission for termination, arguing that the law makes exceptions for victims of rape and sexual assault. She accused her husband and his family of abuse and harassment in addition to betraying her, and that she no longer wished to bear the child of a man who had treated her so poorly. She also added that her pregnancy and circumstances had forced her to quit her job as a software professional and that she no longer had the means to raise a child single-handedly. However, the Bombay High Court, which heard her August prayer only last week, refused to grant her relief under the MTP Act, stating that she did not fall within any of the seven categories of women who can be permitted to undergo an abortion with the approval of a medical board constituted under the Act. Her lawyer is now preparing to move the Supreme Court, where they may have to seek an urgent hearing.
“I was 15 weeks pregnant when I approached the High Court. But I am past 24 weeks now. To be sure, the High Court judges took note of this — they wrote in their order that the woman learnt about her pregnancy after an ultrasound on July 26 and approached the court in August.
The Bombay High Court has often underscored a woman’s bodily autonomy in such cases, granting relief to minor victims of sexual assault. However, for the woman in this case, the court could only offer its empathy. However, the woman argued that the court’s delayed hearing pushed her pregnancy past the threshold. The delay was not on my part.
But I am the one who has to suffer,” the woman told HT.
