Her Autonomy To Seek Abortion In Case Of Marital Discord Which Can Impact Her Mental Health: Delhi HC Discharges Woman In Criminal Case

The High Court was considering a Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 B.N.S.S., challenging an Order upholding the summoning of the Petitioner in a case registered under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “In the light of aforesaid discussion, when the Apex Court in its aforementioned judgments, has recognized the autonomy of a woman to seek abortion in the situation of a marital discord which can impact her mental health, and also the provision of Section 3 MTP Act and the Rules framed therein, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC was committed by the Petitioner.”

Advocate Atul Jain represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Shoaib Haider represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A criminal complaint was filed under Section 200 CrPC for the offences under Section 182,192,195,196,312,379,384,406,420,500,506,34, 120B of the IPC by the second Respondent who is the husband of the Petitioner. The complainant/second Respondent stated in his complaint that he met the Petitioner (first Accused) on a matrimonial site and they got married according to the Hindu Customs and Rites. The complainant asserted that the accused persons with the dishonest intention of cheating the complainant, emotionally blackmailed him and his family, on the pretext that the mother of the wife had died and there was no one in the family to manage the wedding and the engagement functions. It was alleged that the father-in-law of the complainant forced the complainant to organise the engagement. It was claimed by him that he was emotionally manipulated by the complainant to spend a huge amount of money on the wedding.

It was further asserted that the wife earned more than Rs 1,37,500 from her job and some undisclosed earnings from her business, which she intentionally concealed. In 2022, the complainant discovered that she had conceived a child. She eventually went to her parental house, claiming that she was unwell, but refused to return unless a floor was purchased by the complainant. She underwent medical termination of pregnancy of 14 weeks’ foetus under medical supervision. On account of the differences and dispute, the complainant filed a complaint for registration of an FIR along with an Application under Section 156(3) CrPC.The MM held that there was sufficient material on record to summon the Petitioner and the other two accused persons. By the Impugned Order, the summoning of the Petitioner under Section 312 IPC was upheld by the Revisional Court.

Reasoning

The Bench found that the Petitioner was 14 weeks pregnant and wanted termination of pregnancy on account of marital discord, and she intended to seek divorce in future. It was endorsed on the OPD card that, according to the Supreme Court Ruling in September 2022, it cannot be denied, and up to 20 weeks, one Doctor has to give signatures. The Bench thus noticed that the termination of pregnancy was done following the medical protocol.

The Bench stated, “The women’s reproductive rights may include the right to legal and safe abortion, the right to birth control, freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, the right to access good quality reproductive health care and informed reproductive choice.”

Reference was made to a judgment of the Kerala High Court in X vs. Union of India (2022), wherein after referring the Rule 3-B, it was held that in terms of the Rule, a woman undergoing marital discord is entitled to the termination of pregnancy as the MTP Act does not contain any proof requiring a woman to obtain the husband’s permission for termination of pregnancy. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench stated, “The very fact that the woman was stressed and felt that there was a marital discord, created a situation where such stress was likely to impact her mental health and therefore, she was competent to seek her abortion. The concerned Doctor also mentioned in the OPD Card that in view of the judgments of September, 2022, abortion cannot be denied and she went ahead with the abortion.”

Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench set aside the impugned order and discharged the Petitioner.

Cause Title: A v. The State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:52)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Atul Jain

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Shoaib Haider, Advocate Shefali Menezes

Click here to read/download Order