Today, the Delhi High Court held that compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy infringes her bodily autonomy and deepens mental trauma, while discharging an estranged wife from a criminal case initiated by her husband over the medical termination of her 14-week pregnancy.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that the wife could not be prosecuted under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code for causing miscarriage in the circumstances of marital discord.

The Court observed that freedom of choice is an essential aspect of personal autonomy, and control over one’s reproductive decisions is a fundamental right and necessity for women.

It further noted that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not mandate a husband’s consent for abortion, adding that the “golden thread” of the law is the protection of a woman from grave harm to both her physical and mental health.

"If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman's bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would be deleterious to her mental health," said the court in the judgment passed on January 6.

"When the apex court, in its judgments, has recognised 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," the court observed.

The petitioner challenged a sessions court order that affirmed her summoning by a magisterial court to face trial for an offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the other hand, the husband argued that the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act were inapplicable as the couple was residing together on the date of the abortion and, therefore, there was no marital discord at the relevant time.

After hearing from both the parties, the court, rejected the contention and held marital discord could not be "overstretched" to mean that it exists only after the parties have separated and gone into litigation.

In the present case, the wife’s OPD card recorded that she was already experiencing stress arising from the marriage and had taken a decision to separate from her husband.

"It is only a woman who suffers. Such a pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma... There are social, financial, and other aspects immediately attached to the pregnancy of a woman, and if the pregnancy is unwarranted, it can have serious repercussions. It undoubtedly affects the mental health," the judge stated.

The Court further noted that Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules permits medical termination of pregnancy where a woman undergoes a change in marital status, such as widowhood or divorce, and held that the benefit of this provision must be interpreted broadly to cover all women facing a “change in material circumstances.”

"The harsh reality of this misogynistic world cannot be ignored while considering the mental trauma of a woman facing marital discord, which gets compounded many times if she is pregnant.

"Not only is she left to fend for herself, but she is also almost always left to shoulder the responsibility of bringing up a child single-handedly, with no support forthcoming from any source. It is only a woman who suffers. Such pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma", said the court.

The Court held that the woman’s stress and her perception of marital discord itself created circumstances likely to adversely affect her mental health, making her competent under law to seek termination of the pregnancy.