The Supreme Court on Thursday urged an estranged couple to give their six-month-old marriage another chance before it decides whether to allow the wife’s plea to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, cautioning that an irreversible decision taken amid marital discord could leave both with a lifetime of regret if they reconcile later.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna, R Mahadevan and DK Upadhyaya asked the husband to reach out to his wife, who is staying with her parents after alleging mental harassment, and give her the confidence and security needed to carry the pregnancy to term. The court, however, made clear that the decision on termination remained before it, and asked the couple to discuss their differences and report back on Monday.
The high court also rejected the argument that the woman’s reproductive freedom, recognised by the Supreme Court in X Vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (2023), could take the case beyond the statutory framework governing termination.
The high court noted that the couple’s marriage subsisted and that the woman had not pleaded a change in marital status. The high court in its order had held that the woman’s strained relationship with her husband did not, by itself, bring her within the statutory grounds for termination up to 24 weeks. It relied on Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, which lists categories of women eligible for termination during that period, including cases involving a change in marital status during an ongoing pregnancy, such as widowhood or divorce.
The intervention came after the Bombay high court on October 26 dismissed the woman’s plea for termination, holding that her case did not fall within the categories permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Rules. He also told the court that the woman had left the matrimonial home on August 27 and that cases were filed within two weeks. The high court noted that the couple remained married, the foetus showed no congenital anomalies and the allegations of force, continuous mental cruelty and harassment had not been established to allow the termination as per the MTP laws. Her counsel also relied on a medical board’s report that recorded her fragile psychological state and warned that her mental agony could worsen if the pregnancy continued. The husband’s lawyer offered to file an undertaking to maintain and care for both. The wife, however, has alleged mental harassment and has sought termination of the pregnancy.
The woman, in her mid-30s and in her first pregnancy, told the Supreme Court that she had left the matrimonial home after being mentally harassed and tortured.
