Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, on Tuesday, set aside the order sustaining criminal summons against a married woman over the medical termination of her 14-week pregnancy and discharged her from the allegation of causing miscarriage. The case arose from a complaint by her husband asserting that the termination was unlawful, while the woman maintained it was carried out under medical supervision and was sought due to marital discord affecting her mental well-being. The Court concluded that distress arising from matrimonial conflict, where it threatens a woman’s mental health, can justify seeking abortion within the framework of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which both limits and safeguards a woman’s choice to decline a pregnancy when her mental or physical health is at risk.

The petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge which had upheld a summoning order issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate for an alleged offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code. The criminal complaint had been instituted by the husband of the petitioner, alleging multiple offences including cheating, criminal intimidation, breach of trust, and causing miscarriage without lawful justification.

Also Read: Article 21 Speedy Trial Right Applies Regardless Of Alleged Offence; Continued Undertrial Custody Without Trial Commencement Or Reasonable Progress Turns Punitive: Supreme Court

The dispute arose from matrimonial discord between the parties after their marriage. The complainant alleged that the petitioner and her family members had subjected him to financial demands and mental harassment. During the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner conceived and subsequently underwent medical termination of pregnancy at fourteen weeks under medical supervision.

The complainant asserted that the termination was illegal and undertaken without his consent, thereby attracting Section 312 IPC. Medical records, including OPD cards and documents from the hospital where the termination was performed, were placed on record. The petitioner contended that the termination was lawful, carried out in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and necessitated by mental distress arising from marital discord. The petitioner further invoked her constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity.

The Court examined whether the act of termination of pregnancy, as pleaded and supported by medical records, constituted an offence under Section 312 IPC. The Court noted that “it is not in dispute and has been admitted by the Petitioner herself that she had got the child terminated” and that the medical documents clearly recorded the gestational period and the circumstances in which the termination was sought.

Referring to the medical record, the Court recorded that “the OPD Card … recorded that the Petitioner was 14 weeks pregnant and wanted termination of pregnancy on account of marital discord and intended to seek divorce in future.” The Court further noted that the doctor had endorsed that “according to Supreme Court ruling in September, 2022, it cannot be denied.”

On the issue of reproductive autonomy, the Court observed that “abortion is always a difficult and careful decision for a woman who alone should be the choice maker.” It was recorded that “control over reproduction is a basic need and a basic right of all women.”

The Court referred to constitutional jurisprudence and observed that “a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of personal liberty as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It further stated that “the right to autonomy and to decide what to do with their own bodies, including whether or not to get pregnant and stay pregnant, was recognized as a basic right of a woman.”

While interpreting the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the Court observed that “mental health issues may have their genesis in psychological and difficult situations a woman may find herself during the given phase of life.” The Court recorded that “it would be doing great injustice to interpret ‘mental health’ in a narrow pedantic manner.”

Addressing marital discord, the Court stated that “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.” It further observed that “forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy represents violation of her bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma.”

The Court concluded its reasoning by observing that “the autonomy of a woman to seek abortion in the situation of marital discord which can impact her mental health stands recognised under the law.”

Also Read: Delay Plea Under Section 29A A&C Act Cannot Be Invoked By NHAI To Stall Arbitration When Extensions Were Granted In Similar Highway Land Acquisition Matters: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Court directed that “it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC was committed by the Petitioner. The Order of learned ASJ upholding the Order of the learned MM is therefore set aside. The Petitioner is discharged. The Petition is accordingly allowed and the pending Applications are disposed of accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State, Ms. Shefali Menezes, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:52
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 7984/2025
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna