Marital Problems Alone Cannot Be A Ground For Abortion, Says Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court recently refused to permit a married woman to terminate a pregnancy that was initially wanted but subsequently became unwanted due to alleged marital discord. Court held that mere estrangement between spouses cannot by itself satisfy the statutory requirements for medical termination of pregnancy.

The bench comprising Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla examined Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, as amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021, which makes women eligible for termination up to 24 weeks in cases of a “change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)”.

It noted that Rule 3B contains limited circumstances such as the categories enumerated in parentheses appended to the provision. The bench reasoned that the legislative intent behind Rule 3B(c) was to cover a permanent change in marital status, such as divorce or widowhood, and not relatively lesser circumstances such as an estranged relationship.

It held that merely because spouses are living apart or have differences, their marital status does not change. Court said that reading “estranged relationship” into the provision would not advance the object of the Rule, which contemplates an actual change in marital status.

"Every altercation or normal wear and tear of married life would not, in the first instance, render the relationship between the spouses completely estranged, and thereafter warrant enlargement of the scope of the expression contained in the parenthesis appended to the aforesaid Rule so as to carve out a third category of an 'estranged relationship' between spouses," the bench held.

Court, however, clarified that cruelty and domestic violence can independently justify termination on the ground of grave injury to the woman's mental health. But, it cautioned that such an approach would require “overwhelming evidence” establishing cruelty and its impact on the woman's mental health.

Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by a 24-year-old married woman, seeking a direction to the Chief Medical Officer, Bhadohi, for medical termination of her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. She got married to a police constable (Respondent No. 3) on May 3, 2026. At the time of the proceedings, she was carrying a foetus of about 20 weeks.

The petitioner alleged that her husband suspected her character and assaulted her on several occasions. She alleged mental and physical cruelty by his family as well. She further alleged that on July 27, 2026, she was forced to consume phenyl and had to be admitted to a hospital. She also alleged another incident of brutal assault on August 28, 2026.

According to her, attempts to lodge an FIR failed, allegedly because her husband was a police constable. She subsequently approached the Superintendent of Police, Bhadohi, on September 7, 2026, but claimed that this also produced no result.

She alleged that her husband threatened her with registration of an FIR if she proceeded with termination of the pregnancy.

The petitioner said she was unemployed and dependent upon her parents and could not afford childbirth and the subsequent upbringing of the child; therefore, abortion should be permitted.

On the other hand, the husband denied the allegations. He described the dispute between him and the petitioner as a misunderstanding in the early stages of the marriage. He said he was willing to discharge his matrimonial obligations and maintain both his wife and the child.

The husband informed the court that he was earning about Rs 40,000 per month in hand. During the hearing, he agreed to pay Rs 12,000 per month towards the petitioner's medical expenses and the nurture and upbringing of the child.

The high court acknowledged that reproductive autonomy is part of a woman's right under Article 21. It also recognised the woman's right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy. But it stressed that a Constitutional Court cannot simply order termination because a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy. The termination must satisfy the statutory requirements under the MTP Act and Rules.

Court noted that Section 3(2)(b)(i) of the MTP Act permits termination where continuation of pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's life or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health. Section 3(3), court noted, requires due regard to be given to the woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment while assessing such risk.

Court observed that “mental health” is wider than “mental illness”. Court held that a woman need not necessarily have a clinically diagnosed mental disorder for her mental health to be relevant under Section 3(2)(b)(i). Her social and economic circumstances, both present and reasonably foreseeable, could also be relevant in assessing whether continuation of pregnancy would cause grave injury to her mental health.

Against this background, court considered the petitioner's case that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws and that the pregnancy, initially wanted, had subsequently become unwanted because of their alleged ill-treatment.

Court noted that the petitioner in the present case had not filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act. It therefore held that it would be too early to conclude that she was indeed a victim of domestic violence.

Court also noted that there was no material showing that the petitioner's mental health had deteriorated because of conception or pregnancy itself. While her apprehension regarding deterioration of mental health could be relevant, court said termination could not be ordered merely on the basis of the woman's desire to terminate the pregnancy.

Court also rejected the argument that an estranged relationship should be treated as a third category under Rule 3B(c). It held that the provision contemplated a permanent change in marital status and that an estranged relationship may not necessarily be permanent.

The bench also considered the rights and interests of the unborn child. It noted that courts dealing with termination have to balance the reproductive rights of the mother with the interests of the unborn child, particularly where there is no threat to the mother's life or health and no substantial or lethal foetal abnormality.

In the case at hand, court highlighted that the pregnancy had been conceived during the subsistence of the marriage and that there was no case that the couple had initially intended to limit the number of children or that the conception was not consensual.

It therefore held that the unborn child could not, on the facts of the case, be treated as the result of an unwanted pregnancy.

Moreover, seeing the husband's willingness to support the wife and the unborn child financially, court held that the financial burden on the petitioner had been substantially addressed.

The Bench accordingly dismissed the petition.

However, it directed the Chief Medical Officer, Bhadohi, to arrange free marital counselling for the petitioner through a departmental psychologist or the nearest medical college. It also directed the Superintendent of Police, Ghazipur, to deduct Rs 12,000 per month from the husband's salary and transfer the amount to the petitioner's bank account towards medical expenses and the care and upbringing of the child.

Case title: Abc v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Order date: October 5, 2026

Bench: Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla