The Bombay High Court has dismissed a married woman’s plea seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy at approximately 24 weeks, ruling that the circumstances cited by her did not fall within the eligibility categories prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. The woman had alleged that her husband concealed his previous marriage before marrying her, causing her severe mental trauma. A Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan delivered the judgment, holding that the statutory provisions did not provide a legal basis for granting her request.
Background
The petitioner, whose identity was ordered to be anonymised, approached the High Court alleging that her husband had concealed his previous marriage before marrying her on February 16, 2025. She claimed that she discovered information indicating his earlier marriage and was subsequently subjected to mental and physical harassment, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home.
According to the judgment, the woman discovered her pregnancy after undergoing a sonography examination on July 26, 2026. The initial report recorded the pregnancy at 13 weeks and two days. By the time the matter was taken up by the Court, her counsel submitted that the pregnancy had reached approximately 24 weeks.
She sought a medical examination by a Medical Board and permission to terminate the pregnancy, arguing that the alleged deception had caused severe mental trauma and affected her reproductive autonomy.
The Bench examined Section 3 of the MTP Act and Rule 3-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. These provisions specify the circumstances in which pregnancy termination may be permitted up to 24 weeks, including certain categories of women and specified medical circumstances.
The Court noted that the petitioner had not claimed a change in marital status through widowhood or divorce, nor did her case fall within another eligibility category under Rule 3-B. It also observed that the allegations of deception had not been established through any judicial finding.
The Bench further noted that no foetal abnormality involving a risk to the woman's life had been pleaded.
In its judgment, the Court observed:
"It is trite law that relief cannot exceed the four corners of statute. Although, we empathise with the predicament of the Petitioner, unfortunately, in the facts of the present case, we see no legal relief for her under the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971."
The High Court acknowledged the petitioner's predicament but held that the circumstances presented did not provide a legal basis for granting the requested relief under the applicable statutory provisions.
Accordingly, the Division Bench rejected the prayers seeking medical termination of pregnancy and dismissed the writ petition.
The rule was discharged.
Case Details
Case Title: Mrs. XYZ v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 13260 of 2026
Judges: Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashish S. Chavan
Decision Date: October 6, 2026
