Introduction
Indian abortion law clearly recognises the pregnant woman as the sole decision-maker regarding pregnancy. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, amended in 2021, gives complete reproductive autonomy to the woman. It does not require consent from the husband, partner, or biological father.
This legal position flows from statutory law and constitutional principles. Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life, personal liberty, dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. As a result, abortion decisions remain a matter of individual choice rather than family or marital control.
Over time, Indian abortion law has evolved to address women’s health needs and social realities. The MTP Amendment Act, 2021 expanded access to safe abortion. It increased the gestational limit for certain cases and used inclusive language such as “woman or her partner.” Consequently, the law now recognises reproductive choice beyond marriage. Courts have also reinforced that only the pregnant woman has the legal authority to decide.
Legal Position Under the MTP Act
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act permits abortion up to twenty weeks based on the opinion of one registered medical practitioner. In addition, it allows termination up to twenty-four weeks for specific categories of women with approval from two doctors. These grounds include risk to physical or mental health, serious foetal abnormalities, rape, and contraceptive failure.
Most importantly, Section 3(4)(b) of the Act states that only the woman’s consent is required if she is an adult. The law clearly removes any role for spousal or partner consent. Therefore, a husband’s approval has no legal value.
This design protects women from pressure and coercion. It also ensures that reproductive decisions remain private and voluntary.
Can a Husband Prevent His Wife from Getting an Abortion?
A husband cannot legally prevent his wife from undergoing an abortion in India. Marriage does not reduce a woman’s control over her body. Nor does it grant the husband any legal power over pregnancy decisions.
Indian law treats pregnancy as a matter of health, dignity, and bodily autonomy. Therefore, it does not recognise pregnancy as a joint marital right. The deliberate absence of spousal consent in the MTP Act shows clear legislative intent.
As a result, any attempt by a husband to block or challenge an abortion lacks legal support.
Judicial View on Men’s Role in Abortion Decisions
Indian courts have consistently supported women’s reproductive autonomy. They have held that reproductive choice forms part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
In Anil Kumar Malhotra v. Ajay Pasricha (2017), the Supreme Court rejected a husband’s claim related to his wife’s abortion. The Court clarified that the MTP Act requires only the woman’s consent. It also held that a husband has no enforceable right in such matters.
Similarly, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy and decisional autonomy as fundamental rights. Later abortion-related cases relied on this judgment. Courts have repeatedly stated that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy would violate her dignity and mental well-being.
High Courts have also echoed this view. They have warned that recognising paternal veto rights would defeat the purpose of the MTP Act.
Are There Any Legal Exceptions?
Indian law does not recognise any situation where a man can stop an abortion. However, the MTP Act requires guardian consent in cases involving minors or women with mental illness. This requirement exists to protect vulnerable individuals. It does not create any special right for husbands or partners.
In addition, abortions beyond twenty-four weeks may require approval from a Medical Board or court. Even then, decisions depend on medical necessity and legal criteria. A man’s objection carries no legal weight in such cases.
Constitutional and Human Rights Perspective
Reproductive choice plays a key role in gender equality and personal liberty. Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will violates Article 21. It also undermines privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy.
Indian courts increasingly view abortion rights through a human rights lens. While men may hold emotional or moral views, the law does not convert those views into enforceable rights.
Conclusion
Indian law firmly places abortion decisions in the hands of the pregnant woman. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, supported by Article 21 and judicial interpretation, excludes any requirement of spousal or partner consent. Courts have consistently held that men cannot legally interfere with or prevent a lawful abortion. Reproductive choice remains a core aspect of a woman’s dignity, autonomy, and fundamental rights.
