Introduction
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a married woman can terminate her 13-week pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, even if her estranged husband does not appear before the Court. Emphasising a woman’s reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court ruled that the husband’s consent is not required for termination of pregnancy within the statutory framework.
Case Background
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate her 13-week pregnancy after separating from her husband due to matrimonial disputes and criminal proceedings. Although both parties had earlier agreed to dissolve their marriage at a local police station, the husband later withdrew from the arrangement.
Fearing that her husband might object to the abortion or that hospitals might refuse the procedure without his consent, the woman sought judicial intervention. She argued that continuing the pregnancy would cause severe mental trauma and adversely affect her physical, emotional, and socio-economic well-being.
Despite receiving notice from the Court, the husband did not appear during the proceedings.
Petitioner’s Stand
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the pregnancy was only 13 weeks old, which falls within the period permitted for medical termination under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The petitioner argued that forcing her to continue the pregnancy despite the breakdown of her marriage would violate her right to live with dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
State’s Stand
The State relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Principal Secretary, which recognised a woman’s reproductive autonomy and clarified that no extra-legal conditions, including family consent, can be imposed for abortion.
The State further submitted that although notice had been issued to the husband, his consent was legally irrelevant for terminating the pregnancy.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court observed that since the pregnancy was only 13 weeks old, the petitioner was already entitled to seek termination under the MTP Act through a registered medical practitioner. Therefore, permission from the Court was not strictly necessary.
However, considering the matrimonial dispute and the petitioner’s apprehension, the Court granted permission for termination.
The Court also relied on its earlier judgment and referred to judicial precedents recognising that a change in marital circumstances, including separation or divorce proceedings, can justify termination of pregnancy.
It clarified that the present pregnancy did not arise from any criminal offence and therefore did not require any additional legal consideration.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and held that the woman was entitled to terminate her pregnancy without requiring her estranged husband’s consent.
Final Verdict
The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that a woman’s reproductive choice is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It ruled that an estranged husband’s consent is not necessary for terminating a pregnancy that falls within the limits prescribed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Case Title: UA v. State of Madhya Pradesh
