MTP Act | Delhi High Court Permits Termination of 22-Week Pregnancy Resulting From Sexual Relations on False Promise of Marriage
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja permitted a 30-year-old unmarried woman to medically terminate her pregnancy of over 22 weeks, arising from sexual relations on the false pretext of marriage. Referring to Section 3(2)(b) read with Explanation 2 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Court held that pregnancies caused by sexual assault are presumed to cause grave injury to mental health. Recognising reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court directed AIIMS to carry out the procedure and preserve foetal tissue for DNA analysis in the ongoing investigation.
A writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy. The petitioner, an unmarried woman aged 30 years, stated that she had been in a live-in relationship and became pregnant in June 2025 as a result of sexual relations established on the false promise of marriage. She contended that the pregnancy, now over 22 weeks, was unwanted and caused severe physical and mental trauma. She further pointed to social stigma and relied on judicial precedents affirming reproductive autonomy.
Her prayers included directions permitting medical termination, directing the State to facilitate the procedure, and securing foetal tissue as evidence for DNA analysis in connection with FIR No. 459/2025 registered under Sections 69/115(2)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Sarita Vihar. Counsel for the petitioner relied on precedents including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, and XYZ v. State of Gujarat, to assert that reproductive choice and bodily integrity form part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The State submitted a medical report from AIIMS confirming the petitioner’s fitness for termination. Following the Court’s earlier directions, a medical examination by two practitioners confirmed that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave injury to physical and mental health and that the petitioner was clinically fit for the procedure. Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, along with Explanation 2, was invoked, permitting termination up to 24 weeks where pregnancy is alleged to be caused by rape or sexual assault.
The Court observed that “under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, 1971, as amended, a pregnancy may be terminated up to twenty-four weeks for categories of women prescribed by rules, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion that continuance would involve risk to life or grave injury to physical or mental health.”
It recorded that “for the purposes of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3, where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.”
After considering the facts, the Court stated: “the petitioner, an unmarried woman aged 30 years, is carrying a pregnancy of over 22 weeks, which is the result of sexual relations established on the false pretext of marriage. The pregnancy is unwanted, has caused her severe physical and mental trauma, and is the subject matter of FIR No. 459/2025 registered at PS Sarita Vihar.”
The Court referred to precedents, noting that “the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava held that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that she has the sacrosanct right to bodily integrity.”
It further recorded: “in X v. Principal Secretary… it was held that irrespective of marital status, a woman has the absolute right to decide whether to continue with or terminate her pregnancy if continuation would endanger her mental or physical health.”
The Court also cited XYZ v. State of Gujarat and X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) to record that reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and access to abortion are essential components of Article 21 and that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy violates dignity, privacy, and decisional freedom
The Court held: “the petition is therefore allowed with directions that the petitioner be permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy forthwith either today or tomorrow at AIIMS Hospital, with the Investigating Officer ensuring that foetal tissue and other relevant samples are collected and preserved for DNA examination at the FSL for the purpose of investigation in FIR No. 459/2025.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Yadav and Ms. Minakshi Yadav, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar and Ms. Amisha Gupta, Advocates;
Case Title: XXX v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8252
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 2949/2025
Bench: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
