The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that a 17-year-old pregnant girl, residing with a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, be moved to a State-run shelter home, holding that a minor cannot legally cohabit with an accused in such a case.

At the same time, the Court refused to authorise the termination of her pregnancy, citing her express unwillingness.

The directions were passed by Justice Vishal Mishra in a suo motu writ petition (W.P. No. 27514 of 2025), initiated on the basis of a letter received from the Special POCSO Judge, who had sought permission for terminating the minor’s pregnancy. At the time of hearing, the girl was 26 weeks and 4 days pregnant.

Observing that the minor could not be allowed to continue residing with the accused, the Court ordered the police to hand her over to her parents. If they were unwilling to keep her or if she herself expressed unwillingness to stay with them, she was to be shifted to Nari Niketan (Mauganj/Rewa). The Court also directed the Superintendent of Nari Niketan to ensure all necessary medical care and support during her pregnancy and that the girl remain there until she attained majority.

Earlier, the State had been directed to conduct a medical examination. However, the girl declined to undergo any further tests or terminate her pregnancy. In her statement recorded in Hindi, she stated that she had been in a consensual relationship with the accused for the past year and did not wish to undergo a physical examination or abortion.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the High Court underscored that when the opinion of a pregnant minor differs from that of the guardian, her view must be given significant weight in decisions regarding termination of pregnancy.

"In view of the fact that the prosecutrix has not given any consent for undergoing termination of pregnancy," the Court held, "and taking note of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A (Mother of X), the termination of pregnancy in the present case cannot be ordered."

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the Court balancing the prosecutrix’s autonomy with the protective framework applicable to minors.

Case Title: X v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 27514 of 2025
Respondent Counsel: Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri