Bombay High Court
BHAGYASHRI ROHIT KWATRA NEE BHAGYASHRI AMBADAS DONGARDIVEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the petitioner does not fall within any eligibility category under the MTP Act, 1971.
Summary
The petitioner, a 33‑year‑old married woman, filed a writ petition seeking a medical termination of her 13‑week pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, alleging severe mental trauma caused by her husband's concealment of a prior marriage. She claimed that the deception amounted to a grave injury to her mental health, invoking Explanation I to Section 3(2) and Rule 3‑B of the MTP Rules. The Court examined the statutory eligibility criteria, noting that the petitioner did not fall within any category listed in Rule 3‑B, such as survivors of sexual assault, minors, change of marital status (widowhood/divorce), or fetal abnormalities. The Court also observed that the alleged fraud was not judicially established and that the petitioner's gestational age, though initially stated as 13 weeks, was later claimed to be beyond the 24‑week limit, further limiting relief. Consequently, the Court held that no legal provision under the MTP Act applied to the petitioner’s situation and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is eligible for termination of pregnancy under Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, 1971 on the ground of grave mental injury caused by alleged marital fraud.
- Whether the petitioner falls within any category of eligibility enumerated in Rule 3‑B of the MTP Rules, 2003.
- Whether the gestational age exceeding 24 weeks bars termination under the Act.
Legislation cited
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — s. 3(2), 3(2-B)
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 — s. Rule 3-B
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Subjects
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy
- MTP Act
- mental trauma
- marital fraud
- eligibility criteria
- gestational limit
- writ petition
- reproductive rights
Judgment
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
Rohit Ghuge
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13260 OF 2026
Digitally
signed by
ROHIT
ROHIT
RAMDAS
RAMDAS GHUGE
Mrs. XYZ …Petitioner
GHUGE Date:
2026.10.09
20:09:38
+0530
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Principal Secretary,
Public Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Rohit Manoj Kwatra,
Age: 33 years,
R/at B2-403, ARV New Town,
Jagdamba Bhawan Marg, Pisoli,
Pune, Maharashtra 411060. …Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Mr. Narayan L. P. Mishra, for Petitioner.
Smt. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Rammani G. Upadhyay a/w Rajeev Shukla, for Respondent No.2.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 06th OCTOBER 2026.
JUDGMENT [Per Ashish S. Chavan J.]:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties and is taken up for final disposal. Learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents waive notice on behalf of the
1/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
respective Respondents. The Registry is directed to anonymise the
name of the Petitioner in the judgment.
2. The Petitioner, a married woman aged 33 years has invoked the
Writ Jurisdiction of this Court seeking medical termination of her
pregnancy in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 (“MTP Act, 1971”) and the Rules framed therein alleging that her
husband, Respondent No. 2 concealing the fact that he was previously
married, entered into a marriage with the Petitioner on 16.02.2025. It is
alleged that believing his false representation, the Petitioner consented to
the marriage. It is further alleged that, subsequently the Petitioner
discovered documents and information indicating that her husband had a
previous marriage. On a separate note, the Petitioner was allegedly
subjected to continuous mental and physical harassment due to which she
left her matrimonial house. Petitioner after having undergone a
sonography test on 26th July 2026, realised that she was pregnant and the
gestational age of her pregnancy was 13 weeks and 2 days. She
approached this Court by way of the present Petition which was filed on
10.08.2026 and circulated before us on 06.10.2026. The prayers in the
Petition are:
“(a) To direct the competent Medical Board/qualified
medical practitioners to immediately examine the Petitioner
and assess her physical and mental condition and the
feasibility of medical termination of pregnancy;
2/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
(b) To direct the concerned medical hospital to undertake
medical termination of the Petitioner’s pregnancy, in
accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 and the Rules framed thereunder;
(c) To direct that such medical examination and, the
termination procedure be carried out at the earliest,
considering the advancing gestational age;
(d) To pass appropriate directions for maintaining
confidentiality of the Petitioner’s identity and medical
records, in accordance with law; and
(e) To pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper.”
3. Heard Mr. Mishra for the Petitioner, Ms. Thakur, AGP for
Respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Upadhyay for Respondent No. 2.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the
pregnancy of the Petitioner is at an advanced stage and its gestational age
is approximately 24 weeks. Since she had crossed the limit of 24 weeks
prescribed by the MTP Act, 1971 to undergo medical termination of
pregnancy, it was prayed that she may be referred to the Medical Board
constituted under the MTP Act. 1971 and after examining and assessing
her condition, she may be permitted to terminate her pregnancy. The
only argument that was canvassed before us on behalf of the Petitioner in
support of her prayers was that due to the discovery of the fraud
allegedly perpetrated on her by Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is in a
3/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
severe mental trauma and loss of trust in the matrimonial relationship.
She is an adult woman having reproductive autonomy and the
continuation of her pregnancy is likely to cause grave injury to her
mental health, having regard to her actual and reasonably forseeable
circumstances. The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Explanation I
to Section 3(2) and Rule 3-B of the MTP Act, 1971and Rules framed
therein to argue that the mental trauma suffered by her is grave enough
to attract the aforesaid provisions.
5. The issue that arises before us is whether the Petitioner can be
permitted to terminate her pregnancy in terms of the MTP Act, 1971 and
the Rules framed therein in the peculiar facts of the present case.
Before proceeding to examine this issue, it would be apposite to set
out the scheme of the MTP Act, 1971 (as amended till date). Originally
enacted in 1971, the said Act provided for termination of certain
pregnancies by registered medical practitioners recognizing the
importance of safe, affordable, accessible abortion services to women
who needed to terminate pregnancy under certain specified conditions.
The Act was amended from time to time since, with the advancement of
medical technology, it was felt that there was scope for increasing the
upper gestational limit for terminating pregnancies, especially for
vulnerable women with substantial foetal anomalies. It provided for
4/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
certain procedural changes including delegation of powers to approve
more places for medical termination of pregnancy and active involvement
at the grass root levels by constituting district level committees for
implementation of the Act, enhancing the penal punishment for offence
under this Act to extend upto 7 years. The amendments further stipulated
a period of 24 weeks for gestation as the upper limit for termination of
pregnancy with the safeguard of requirement of opinion of two
registered medical practitioners for termination of pregnancy. They also
provided for the constitution of a medical board to authorise termination
of such pregnancies as felt necessary after diagnosis of any substantial
foetal anomalies by the medical board, even beyond, the stipulated
period of 24 weeks.
6. Revisiting the facts of the present case, Section 3 (2) of the MTP
Ac, 1971 provides for termination of a pregnancy within 24 weeks if the
continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the
pregnant woman or a grave injury to her physical or mental health or
there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from
any serious physical or mental abnormality. By way of explanations, the
MTP Act, 1971 presumes that where any pregnancy is alleged to have
been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy is deemed to
be a grave injury to the mental health of the woman. Similarly, where
5/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
such pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used
by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the children or
preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy is deemed to
be a grave injury to the mental health of the woman. Section 3 (2-B)
provides that the length of the pregnancy will not apply to its
termination where such termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of
any substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board. Rule
3-B of MTP Rules, 2003 enumerates the eligibility criteria for
termination of pregnancy upto 24 weeks under Section 3 (2) (b). It reads
thus:
“3-B. Women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to
twenty-four weeks. -
The following categories of women shall be considered
eligible for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) section 3 of the Act, for a period of up to
twenty-four weeks, namely: -
(a) survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest;
(b) minors;
(c) change of marital status during the ongoing
pregnancy (widowhood and divorce);
(d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as
per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)];
(e) mentally ill women including mental retardation;
(f)the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of
being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may
may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to
be seriously handicapped; and
6/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
(g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or
disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by
the Government.”
7. In the facts of the present case, the Petitioner has neither pleaded
nor contended any change in her marital status by way of widowhood or
divorce as contemplated under Rule 3-B (c) of the MTP Act, 1971.
Evidently, she is not covered by any other category of eligibility as
contemplated by Rule 3-B. The solitary submission of the Petitioner is
that the mental trauma suffered by her on account of the deception
practiced by the Respondent No.2 i.e. her husband, arising out of the
alleged discovery of the fraud played by him is grave enough to attract
the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971. The Petitioner has neither pleaded
nor contended that there is any judicial finding as to the allegations of
fraud alleged by her. Thus, the contentions of the Petitioner are in the
realm of allegations. It is not the case of the Petitioner that her foetus
suffers from any abnormalities which would involve a risk to her life.
Even otherwise, Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971 r/w Rule 3-B does
not contemplate a situation/category which renders the Petitioner eligible
for termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act, 1971. 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
7/8
31.wp.13260.2026.doc
provisions of the MTP Act, 1971. In these circumstances, therefore, we
reject the prayers of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
8/8
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.