High Court
Legal Reasoning
916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 12194 OF 2025X Y ZVERSUSThe Stae Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Another…•Mrs. Vanita H. Sangole Jaitmal, Advocate for the Petitioner•Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 -State…CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.DATED :OCTOBER 07, 2025ORDER : (PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) 1.The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India presents a extremely human and distressing situation whichlies in the clutches of law, medicine and morality. The victim herein isa 30 year old woman suffering from mild intellectual disability. Shehas been residing at the Sakhi One-Stop Center, Parbhani, under theorders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani. Her presentpregnancy is not the result of a consensual relationship but a tragicoutcome of alleged sexual violence, for which an FIR bearingNo. 676 of 2025, dated 19.09.2025, has been registered withJhs/1/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025Gangakhed Police Station, Parbhani. Through this petition, thepetitioner, who appears to be the husband of victim, seeks a directionfrom this Court for permitting the medical termination of herpregnancy, which, as on the date of hearing, has reached agestational age of 29 weeks and 6 days.2.The victim underwent an obstetric sonography at theGovernment Medical College and Hospital, Parbhani, on 19.09.2025,which confirmed the presence of a single live intrauterine foetus of27 weeks and 3 days. The expected date of delivery, as assessed bythe doctors, is 16.12.2025. Further, an intelligence quotient (I.Q.)assessment carried out by the Government Medical College, Nanded,on 23.09.2025, placed the victim’s I.Q. at 66, which corresponds tothe mental age of 10 years and 6 months child, thus, indicating mildintellectual disability. It is stated that the victim’s husband andmother have abandoned her and there is absolutely no family supportand financial independence to the victim. The present petition,therefore, arises out of the need to secure her bodily integrity,psychological health and dignity. However, we have to assess thepresent petition within the statutory constraints imposed by theMedical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short, the MTP Act).3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this Court toexercise its jurisdiction in a manner that protects the mental andJhs/2/10
Legal Reasoning
916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025physical well-being of the victim. It was also submitted that thepregnancy is the result of sexual assault, which has caused immensetrauma to the victim, and owing to her mental condition, she lacksthe emotional and cognitive capacity to understand motherhood or totake care of a child. It was further argued that forcing the victim tocarry the pregnancy to its full term would constitute cruel anddegrading treatment, which is contrary to her rights under Article 21of the Constitution. The victim’s advocate, in support of herargument, relied upon the recent decision passed by this Court inWrit Petition No. 9899 of 2025, wherein permission to terminate apregnancy of 26 weeks and 5 days was granted. In respect ofprotecting the victim’s right to reproductive autonomy being anintegral part of her right to dignity and privacy.4.Learned AGP appearing for the State has placed before us thereport submitted by the Medical Board constituted at the GovernmentMedical College and Hospital, Parbhani, dated 07.10.2025. Thereport records that the victim suffers from mild intellectual disabilitywith psychosis (NOS). The foetus is alive, measuring approximately12 cm and weighing around 1382 gms. The report further notes thatthe foetus exhibits no structural or congenital abnormalities and thatthe continuation of pregnancy does not pose any life threatening riskto the victim. Upon this report, the learned AGP submitted thatJhs/3/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025neither of the statutory exceptions mentioned under Section 3(2-B)or Section 5 of the MTP Act are attracted in the present case. Thelearned AGP rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another;(2024) 5 SCR 470. 5.Before we proceed to examine the medical opinion, it isnecessary to restate the constitutional guarantees that govern suchcases. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 19 and 21guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity, autonomyand bodily integrity. For women, and particularly for women who arevictims of sexual assault, these rights are not abstract ideals but theyare living assurances that the law will not compound their trauma.The Supreme Court, in the case of Suchita Srivastava Vs. ChandigarhAdministration; (2009) 9 SCC 1, held as under :- “24.The Explanations to Section 3 have also contemplated thetermination of pregnancy when the same is the result of a rape ora failure of birth control methods since both of these eventualitieshave been equated with a “grave injury to the mental health” of awoman.”6.Thus Court observes that the right to privacy, dignity andbodily integrity includes the right to decide whether or not to bear achild. These pronouncements affirm that reproductive autonomyJhs/4/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025must be respected not merely as a matter of medical judgment butalso as a constitutional entitlement. 7.Yet, the fundamental duty of this Court is to ensure that itsempathy does not transgress and it stay within the limits andboundaries of law. The MTP Act is a welfare legislation intended tobalance a woman’s right to autonomy with the protection of potentiallife. While the 2021 amendments to the Act liberalized theframework by extending the upper gestational limit to 24 weeks incertain categories of women, including survivors of rape and womenwith mental disabilities, the statute still places a ceiling ontermination beyond 24 weeks, except under two narrowly definedexceptions in Section 3(2-B), in cases, where the Medical Boardcertifies that the foetus suffers from substantial abnormalities, orSection 5, where termination is immediately necessary to save the lifeof the pregnant woman. Thus, the Court must act within thisstatutory framework, even while interpreting it in the light ofconstitutional values. 8.As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Motherof X) (Supra), the Court approach to such petitions has consistentlybeen guided by the expert opinion of a duly constituted MedicalBoard. The judicial function is not to substitute medical expertise butto ensure that the medical assessment is taken into consideration asJhs/5/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025they are expert from the medical field. The Medical Board’s report inthe present case, unequivocally records that the foetus is viable, withnormal growth parameters and no congenital abnormalities. Itfurther does not state that there is any risk or threat to thepetitioner’s life or health from continuation of the pregnancy. In theabsence of such medical findings, neither of the two statutoryexceptions provided under Section 3(2-B) or Section 5 of the MTPAct can be invoked. 9.This Court, therefore, cannot grant permission for terminationof pregnancy beyond 29 weeks merely on the basis of mentalincapacity of the victim, though this Court has full sympathy with her,concerning her mental state. The Supreme Court in the case ofA (Mother of X) (Supra), emphasizes that while reproductiveautonomy must be protected, the viability of the foetus and themedical risk to the mother are paramount consideration once thepregnancy crosses the stage of viability. To this regard, theseconsiderations would amount to judicial legislation and we, underArticle 226 of the Constitution, are required to abstain from doing so.10.The present case, thus, brings us into the limits of legalintervention in matters where the law has not yet evolved to accountfor the stressful experiences of vulnerable women. The victim herein,is a victim of circumstances beyond her comprehension. Her mentalJhs/6/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025age, as recorded, is that of a child, and yet she carries within her afoetus nearing full term. The anguish of such condition cannot becaptured merely in medical terms. However, this Court must considerthe facts carefully and ensure that, in seeking to protect her dignity, itdoes not transgress the statutory safeguards that Parliament hasenacted. This Court needs to balance the “right of a woman tochoose” with the “right of unborn child to his or her potential life”.Here though the FIR is lodged by husband of the victim, it appearsthat he has refused to maintain victim, may be on account of allegedhistory of rape upon the victim. We do not want to make anycomment upon the theory of rape as it may adversely affect theprosecution story which is at investigation stage now.11.The Court’s refusal to permit termination in such circumstancesdoes not mean a withdrawal of protection to the petitioner. On thecontrary, it obliges the State to ensure that the petitioner is not leftalone to bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy or theresponsibilities that fall thereafter. The Supreme Court in the case ofthe A (Mother of X) (Supra), has held that where the Court is unableto permit termination due to statutory limitations, it must ensure thecontinued welfare of the woman and the child. The constitutionalresponsibility extends beyond the courtrooms into the domain ofadministrative governance. Jhs/7/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 202512.In light of the above discussion, while this Court cannot grantpermission for termination at the advance stage of gestation, we areequally conscious of the State’s obligation to protect and rehabilitatethe victim. Accordingly, the following directions are issued :-a) The victim shall continue to remain under the medical careand supervision of the Government Medical College andHospital, Parbhani, until such time as the delivery is safelycompleted. The medical institution shall provide her with allnecessary prenatal and postnatal care, including psychiatricsupport, counselling and medication as may be advised byspecialists in obstetrics and psychiatry.b)The State of Maharashtra shall bear all expenses associatedwith the victim’s medical treatment, nutrition, hospitalizationand rehabilitation. A separate fund shall be earmarked by theDepartment of Women and Child Development for thispurpose, and the Dean of the Medical College shall beauthorized to draw upon it directly.c)The Sakhi One-Stop center shall ensure that the victim isprovided with a trained female attendant and physiologicalcounsellor throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. Thecounsellor shall submit fortnightly reports to the DistrictJhs/8/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025Women and Child Welfare Officer regarding her mental andemotional condition.d)Upon delivery, if the victim is unable to take care of the newborn or her lawful guardian, if any expresses unwillingness orinability to care for the child, the Child Welfare committee,Parbhani, shall forthwith take custody of the newborn andinitiate proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (Care andProtection of Children) Act, 2015, for placement into fostercare or adoption through a recognized agency, in accordancewith law.e)The District Collector, Parbhani, shall constitute a monitoringcommittee comprising the Civil Surgeon, Superintendent ofPolice, and the District Child Protection Officer to oversee theimplementation of these directions and to ensure that thevictim is not subjected to neglect, abuse or coercion at anystage. A compliance report shall be submitted to this Courtwithin eight weeks of the victim’s delivery.13.This Court, in declining the relief sought, does not close itseyes to the human suffering involved. The judgment, therefore, seeksto ensure that while statutory limits are respected, the victim’sdignity, health and future are fully protected by the State. TheJhs/9/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025Constitutional guarantees of a life with dignity must not end with thedenial of medical termination; on the contrary, State must step in forwelfare, rehabilitation and protection of the petitioner.14.For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands disposedof with the directions contained herein.( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )Jhs/10/10