CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 1 of 28

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 12

th

November, 2025

Pronounced on: 06

th

January, 2026

+ CRL.M.C. 7984/2025

SANYA BHASIN

W/o Himanshu Bhasin

D/o Sh. Puneet Bhasin

GF-8, Ankur Apartments,

Sector-5, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad

Uttar Pradesh-201005 ....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate.

versus

1. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

Through SHO

P.S. Paharganj

Delhi-110055 ....Respondent No.1

2. HIMANSHU SARPAL

S/o Sh. Kamal Sarpal

WZ-92, 3

rd

Floor,

Ramesh Nagar,

Delhi-110035 ….Respondent No.2

Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for the State.

Ms. Shefali Menezes, Advocate for

R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 (hereinafter referred to as „B.N.S.S.‟) (corresponding to Section 482 of

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 2 of 28

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.PC‟)),

has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner, Ms. Sanya Bhasin for challenging

the Order dated 13.08.2025 whereby the learned ASJ-04, Delhi, has upheld

the Order dated 18.04.2024 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila

Court), Delhi summoning the Petitioner for the offence punishable under

Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

„IPC‟).

2. Briefly stated, Criminal Complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was

filed for the offences under Section 182/192/195/196/312/379/384/

406/420/500/506/34/120B of IPC by Mr. Himanshu Sarpal, the

Complainant/ Respondent No. 2 who is the husband of the Petitioner.

3. The Complainant/ Respondent No.2 stated in his Complaint that he

met the Petitioner, Ms. Sanya Bhasin (Accused No. 1) on Shaadi.Com in

around May, 2021 and they got married on 19.04.2022, according to the

Hindu Customs and Rites at Moti Nagar, New Delhi.

4. The Complainant asserted that the accused persons with the dishonest

intention of cheating the Complainant, emotionally blackmailed him and his

family, on the pretext that the mother of Ms. Sanya Bhasin had died and

there were no one in the family to manage the wedding and the engagement

functions. He was put under unwarranted pressure by the accused persons

not only to organise the wedding rituals and the engagement function on

17.04.2022, but was also made to pay the entire amount for the engagement

function. Accused No. 3, Puneet Bhasin, father-in-law of the Complainant,

forced the Complainant to organise the engagement on 17.04.2022 instead

of 16.04.2022, which cost him around Rs.1,00,000/- more. Even the cost of

wedding jewellery and other items of Ms. Sanya Bhasin, were paid by the

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 3 of 28

Complainant and his sister. It was claimed by him that he was emotionally

manipulated by the Complainant, to spend huge amount of money in the

wedding.

5. It was further asserted in the Complaint that after the marriage, the

Petitioner started residing with the Complainant/husband and his parents, in

his rented accommodation at Paharganj, New Delhi.

6. It was asserted that the Complainant/husband was shocked when Ms.

Sanya Bhasin, in connivance with her brother Shivam Bhasin, Accused No.

2, on 25.04.2022, made a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- on the pretext of opening

a new Office along with her brother/Accused No. 2. He tried to explain, but

despite his protest, he was compelled to provide the money from his

personal savings and was also forced not to disclose this fact to anyone.

False assurance was given that the money would be returned, but it has not

been done so till date.

7. The Complainant further explained the instances in detail, to claim

that there was strained relationship between him and the Accused persons on

account of their greed. In support thereof, he relied upon the Chats with the

Petitioner from 02.07.2022 to 01.09.2022. He also filed the photographs of

them together.

8. It was claimed that Accused No. 1, Ms. Sanya Bhasin failed to

perform her matrimonial duties, she even tried to compel the Complainant to

live separately from his parents, and also complained about the place of

residence. She even insisted that they changed the accommodation or buy a

house. She compelled him to buy a car for her. The discontentment with the

matrimonial life, became more and more as the Petitioner‟s conduct became

vindictive and she planned to cause harm to the Complainant, which was

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 4 of 28

extremely disheartening. She induced the Complainant to part with money

on various occasions. She also threatened to divorce the Complainant under

the fear of which, he gave in to her demands.

9. It is further asserted that the wife earned more than Rs.1,37,500/-

from her job and some undisclosed earnings from her business, which she

intentionally concealed by asserting that the money was being handled by

her brother and father.

10. On 26.08.2022, the Complainant discovered that she had conceived a

child. She eventually went to her parental house on 07.10.2022 claiming that

she was unwell, but refused to return unless floor was purchased by the

Complainant. She underwent medical termination of pregnancy of 14

weeks’ foetus under medical supervision, on 09.10.2022.

11. On account of the differences and dispute, Complainant filed

Complaint for registration of FIR No. 338/2023 under Section

498A/406/323/24 IPC along with an Application under Section 156(3)

CrPC.

12. The Complainant in support of his case, examined himself as CW-1 in

pre-summoning evidence. He reiterated allegations made in the Complaint

and exhibited all the requisite documents.

13. The learned MM after perusal of the allegations made in the

Complaint and the testimony of CW-1, held that there was sufficient

material on record to summon the Petitioner, Ms. Sanya Bhasin, Accused

No. 2, Shivam Bhasin and Accused No. 3, Puneet Bhasin for the offences

under Section 120B/312/406/420/384/506/34 IPC. Accused No. 4, namely,

Mr. Pawan Sahni, however, was not summoned as there was no sufficient

material against him.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 5 of 28

14. The impugned Summoning Order was challenged by the three

Accused vide Revision Petition under Section 397 CrPC before the learned

ASJ, who in his detailed Order dated 13.08.2025 considered the entire

evidence and upheld the Summoning of Accused No. 1, Ms. Sanya

Bhasin (Petitioner) for the offence under Section 312 IPC only and

discharged her for all other offences. Additionally, it was held that there was

no cogent evidence against the Accused Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. Shivam Bhasin and

Puneet Bhasin, respectively, and the Summoning Order against them, was

set aside.

15. The Impugned Summoning Order has been challenged by the

Petitioner, Ms. Sanya Bhasin on the grounds that the learned Revisional

Court has overlooked that the essential ingredients for the offence under

Section 312 IPC, which were entirely absent in the Complaint. The

provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, have been

completely overlooked. The Petitioner had voluntarily undergone the

procedure in a registered hospital under qualified medical supervision,

which is in accordance with the Act. The termination was done within the

statutory gestational limit of less than 20 weeks, under medical advice. No

offence under Section 312 IPC, therefore, arises.

16. The reproductive autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India, has been erroneously criminalised and her lawful

exercise of fundamental right to privacy, bodily integrity and decisional

liberty, has been overlooked. It has been disregarded that there was absence

of mens rea or criminal intention on the part of the Petitioner, who did not

act with an intention to destroy life or commit a criminal act; she was in

distress due to mental cruelty and inhuman treatment to which she was

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 6 of 28

subjected at the matrimonial home. She was not in a position to safely bring

up the child in such an abusive and unstable environment. “Good faith” is

an express Exception under Section 312 IPC. The Courts while interpreting

“saving the life of the woman” held that it refers not merely to physical

survival, but also preservation of her overall health well-being, as has been

held in the Case of Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Administration,

(2009) 9 SCC 1.

17. Reliance has also placed on X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and

Family Welfare, 2023 14 SCC 615 wherein it was held that the woman‟s

decisional autonomy with respect to her reproductive rights, forms an

intrinsic part of the Article 21 of the Constitution, needs to be protected.

18. Reliance is also placed on High Court in its own motion vs. State of

Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8426; Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special

Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 479 wherein it was held that the

Magistrate must carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may

even put questions himself to the Petitioner and the witnesses, to elicit the

answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then

examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the

accused.

19. Reliance is also placed on State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it was held that the criminal proceedings which

amount to abuse of process of law or are manifestly mala fide filed with

ulterior motives, may be quashed.

20. A prayer is, therefore, made that the Summoning Order dated

13.08.2025 whereby the Petitioner, Ms. Sanya Bhasin has been summoned

for the offence under Section 312 IPC, may be set-aside.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 7 of 28

Submissions heard and the record perused.

21. By the Impugned Order, the summoning of the Petitioner under

Section 312 IPC by the MM, has been upheld by the Revisional Court. The

allegations against the Petitioner are that she was pregnant and got the 14

weeks‟ foetus aborted in contravention of Law.

22. It is not in dispute and has been admitted by the Petitioner herself that

she had got the child terminated. There is also a mention about the said act

in the Complaint filed before the CAW Cell dated 05.11.2022, wherein she

herself stated that she got the pregnancy terminated on account of stress

given to her by the in-laws. The Complainant had also filed medical

documents as Annexure C-18 in the Complaint.

23. In Medical OPD Card of the Petitioner dated 16.08.2022, it has been

recorded that UPT Test conducted by the Petitioner, was found positive and

Period of Gestation (POG) was stated to be seven weeks. Various medicines

were recommended to be taken by the Petitioner.

24. Further, the OPD Card of Life Care Centre, Gagan Vihar, Delhi dated

09.10.2023 recorded as under:

“14 weeks pregnancy

wants Termination of Pregnancy as there Marital discord &

wish to seek divorce in future.

According to Supreme Court Ruling in Sep 2022, it cannot be

denied.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

25. It is evident that Petitioner was 14 weeks pregnant and wanted

termination of pregnancy on account of marital discord and she intended to

seek divorce in future. It was further endorsed on the OPD card that

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 8 of 28

according the Supreme Court Ruling in September, 2022, it cannot be

denied and up to 20 weeks, one Doctor has to give signatures.

Consequentially, termination of pregnancy was done following the medical

protocol.

26. This case raises a seminal question of whether a woman can make a

choice to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it within the specified

period, as provided in Section 3 of the MTP Act and if yes, under what

circumstances.

27. Abortion is always a difficult and careful decision for a woman who

alone should be the choice maker. World Health Organization has defined

reproductive rights as those rights which are based on the recognition of the

basic right of all individuals and couples particularly the women to decide

freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children to

have information and means to do so and includes the right to attain the

highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.

28. The first aspect which needs to be addressed is the right of a woman

to get the pregnancy terminated and the right of a foetus to be born.

29. The moral dilemma in regard to abortion or the right of the unborn

child, needs to be dispelled by referring to International Human Rights Law,

which states that a person is vested with human rights only at birth; an

unborn foetus is not an entity with human rights. Child is born when he

takes the first breath and becomes a human entity. The unborn foetus

cannot be put on a higher pedestal than the right of a living woman. This

argument based on morality, therefore, cannot be put on a pedestal and may

not be given over-emphasized importance, when considering the rights of a

pregnant woman, who alone suffers the pain of pregnancy.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 9 of 28

30. Control over reproduction is a basic need and a basic right of all

women. The right to make a choice rests in the control of a woman she

exercises over her own body and reproductive choice. In Common Cause vs.

Union of India, (2018) 5 SCC 1, the Apex Court observed that the right to

privacy protects decisional autonomy when matters related to bodily

integrity.

31. The women‟s reproductive rights may include the right to legal and

safe abortion, the right to birth control, freedom from coerced sterilization

and contraception, the right to access good quality reproductive health care

and informed reproductive choice.

32. In the case of Suchita Srivastava vs. State, (2009) 9 SCC 1, the

Supreme Court explained the dimensions of personal liberty guaranteed

under Article 21 and explicitly recognised the concept of reproductive

autonomy. It observed as under:

22. There is no doubt 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 is important to recognise that

reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as

well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial

consideration is that a woman's right to privacy,

dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This

means that there should be no restriction whatsoever

on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a

woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity

or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive

methods. Furthermore. women are also free to choose

birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation

procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion,

reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to

carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 10 of 28

subsequently raise children. However, in the case of

pregnant women there is also a "compelling State

interest" in protecting the life of the prospective child.

Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only

permitted when the conditions specified in the

applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the

provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed

as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on

the exercise of reproductive choices."

[Emphasis Supplied]

33. This aforesaid case was referred by the Apex Court in the case of X

vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of NCT of

Delhi and Anr., (2023) 9 SCC 433 wherein the right to abortion was viewed

in the context of right to dignity, and the right of women to make

reproductive choices, as a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21 of

the Constitution was reiterated. It also recognized that right to reproductive

choice also includes the right not to procreate. It was observed that in the

context of abortion, the right to dignity entails recognising the competence

and authority of every woman to take reproductive decision including a

decision to terminate the pregnancy, without undue interference from the

State. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or emotional and

physical well-being also injures the dignity of women.

34. The pregnancy has profound effects on the health, mental well-being

and life of a woman, as observed by the High Court of Bombay in the case

of High Court on its Own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra (supra). Thus,

the decision in regard to the pregnancy, must be of the woman alone. The

right to control their own body and fertility and motherhood choices, should

be left to the women alone. The right to autonomy and to decide what to do

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 11 of 28

with their own bodies, including whether or not to get pregnant and stay

pregnant, was recognized as a basic right of a woman.

35. This freedom of choice of a woman is recognized as a facet of the

personal autonomy of a woman in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union

of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 wherein it was observed that the “woman’s

freedom of choice, whether to bear a child or abort her pregnancy, are

areas which fall in the realm of privacy”. The relevant observations are as

under:

“297. What, then, does privacy postulate? Privacy

postulates the reservation of a private space for the

individual, described as the right to be let alone. The

concept is founded on the autonomy of the individual. The

ability of an individual to make choices lies at the core of

the human personality. The notion of privacy enables the

individual to assert and control the human element which

is inseparable from the personality of the individual. The

inviolable nature of the human personality is manifested

in the ability to make decisions on matters intimate to

human life. The autonomy of the individual is associated

over matters which can be kept private. These are

concerns over which there is a legitimate expectation of

privacy. The body and the mind are inseparable elements

of the human personality. The integrity of the body and

the sanctity of the mind can exist on the foundation that

each individual possesses an inalienable ability and right

to preserve a private space in which the human personality

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 12 of 28

can develop. Without the ability to make choices, the

inviolability of the personality would be in doubt.

Recognising a zone of privacy is but an acknowledgment

that each individual must be entitled to chart and pursue the

course of development of personality. Hence privacy is a

postulate of human dignity itself. Thoughts and behavioural

patterns which are intimate to an individual are entitled to a

zone of privacy where one is free of social expectations. In

that zone of privacy, an individual is not judged by

others...”

[Emphasis Supplied]

36. In X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of

NCT of Delhi and Anr., (2023) 9 SCC 433, the Apex Court discussed the

right to reproductive autonomy and the right to bodily autonomy in the

following terms:

“103. ...Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of

legal barriers restricting a woman's right to access

abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion

is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only

the woman can choose on her own terms without external

interference or influence. Reproductive autonomy requires

that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to

choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any

consent or authorisation from a third party.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 13 of 28

104. The right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked

with the right to bodily autonomy. As the term itself

suggests, bodily autonomy is the right to take decisions

about one's body. The consequences of an unwanted

pregnancy on a woman's body as well as her mind cannot

be understated. The foetus relies on the pregnant woman's

body for sustenance and nourishment until it is born. The

biological process of pregnancy transforms the woman's

body to permit this. The woman may experience swelling,

body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and restricted

mobility, to name a few of a host of side effects. Further,

complications may arise which pose a risk to the life of the

woman. A mere description of the side effects of a

pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the visceral image

of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted

pregnancy. Therefore, the decision to carry the pregnancy

to its full term or terminate it is firmly rooted in the right

to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the

pregnant woman.

***

112. The right to decisional autonomy also means that

women may choose the course of their lives. Besides

physical consequences, unwanted pregnancies which

women are forced to carry to term may have cascading

effects for the rest of her life by interrupting her education,

her career, or affecting her mental well-being.”

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 14 of 28

[Emphasis Supplied]

37. The right of choice of abortion, which is held to be the constitutional

right to personal autonomy, needs to be appreciated in the context of The

Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) which regulates

and put reasonable restrictions on this right of a woman.

38. To examine whether termination of pregnancy by the Petitioner

constituted an offence under Section 312 IPC, it would be pertinent to first

refer to Section 3 and 5 of MTP Act, which reads as under:

“3. When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered

medical practitioners.-

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner

shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any

other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is

terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this

Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a

pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical

practitioner,-

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed

twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is,

or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve

weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than

two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion,

formed in good faith, that,-

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 15 of 28

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk

to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury

physical or mental health ; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born,

it would suffer from such physical or mental

abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Explanation 1.-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.

Explanation 2.-Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of

failure of any device or method used by any married woman

or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of

children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy

may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental

health of the pregnant woman.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy

would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned

in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant

woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.

(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the

age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of

eighteen years, is a lunatic, shall be terminated except

with the consent in writing of her guardian.

(b) Save as otherwise provided in C1.(a), no pregnancy

shall be terminated except with the consent of the

pregnant woman.

S. 5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply -

(1) The provisions of Sec.4 and so much of the provisions

of sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 as relate to the length of the

pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two

registered medical practitioner, shall not apply to the

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 16 of 28

termination of a pregnancy by the registered medical

practitioner in case where he is of opinion, formed in

good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is

immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant

woman.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian

Penal Code (45 of 1860), the termination of a pregnancy

by a person who is not a registered medical practitioner

shall be an offence punishable under that Code, and that

Code shall, to this extent, stand modified.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

39. Section 3 and Section 5 of MTP Act are the only Sections which

allow termination of pregnancy. Section 3(2) states that where the length of

pregnancy does not exceed upto 20 weeks, it can be terminated by a

registered medical practitioner if he is of the opinion that continuance of

pregnancy either would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman or

grave injury to her physical or mental health. If continuance of pregnancy is

harmful to the mental health of the pregnant woman, then it is a good and

legal ground to allow termination, if the pregnancy is not exceeding 20

weeks.

40. Whereas Section 3 provides a limit of termination upto a

maximum of 20 weeks in the prescribed circumstances, Section 5 MTP

Act stands on a different footing. It can be evoked at any point of time if

the registered medical practitioner is of the opinion in good faith that

termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the

pregnant woman, irrespective of restriction of 12 or 20 weeks as mentioned

in Section 3 MTP Act.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 17 of 28

41. The golden thread running through the aforesaid Sections of MTP

Act, is the concern for the grave injury to her physical or mental health,

which needs to be assessed in terms of woman's actual or reasonable

foreseeable environment. It would be doing great injustice to interpret

“mental health” in a narrow pedantic manner, if it is interpreted as a

physiological or neurological condition. Mental health issues may have their

genesis in psychological and difficult situations a woman may find herself,

during the given phase of life. The guiding light for correct interpretation is

the phrase woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment, as finds

mention in Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, which has greater nexus to the

aspect of mental health as compared to the physical health.

42. The harsh reality of this misogynistic world cannot be ignored while

considering the mental trauma of a woman facing marital discord, which

gets compounded many times if she is pregnant. Not only is she left to fend

for herself, but almost always is left to shoulder the responsibility of

bringing up a child single handedly, with no support forth coming from any

source. It is only a woman who suffers. Such pregnancy brings with it

insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma.

43. This aspect of mental trauma arising due to marital discord was

succinctly stated by the High Court of Bombay in the case of High Court on

its Own Motion vs. State of Maharashtra. It took an expansive approach

while considering the harm and the health of a pregnant woman and

observed, “the mental health can deteriorate if it is forced or is unwanted

pregnancy”. It was further observed that a woman irrespective of her marital

status, can be pregnant either by choice or it can be an unwarranted

pregnancy. Wanted pregnancy is shared equally, but when it is an accident

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 18 of 28

or unwanted, then the man may not be there to share the burden but it

would only be the woman on whom the burden shall fall. There are social,

financial, and other aspects immediately attached to the pregnancy of a

woman, and if pregnancy is unwarranted, it can have serious repercussions.

It undoubtedly affects the mental health. The law makers have taken care of

helpless plight of a woman and have enacted Section 3(2)(b)(i) by

incorporating the words “grave injury to her mental health”. It is

mandatory that the registered medical practitioner while forming opinion of

necessity of termination of pregnancy, must take into account whether it is

injurious to her physical or mental health. While doing so, the woman‟s

actual or reasonable foreseeable environment, may be taken into account.

44. While highlighting that a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy,

it was noted that often it is the only way out of a very difficult situation for a

woman. It is a carefully considered decision taken by a woman, who fears

that the welfare of the child and of the other members of the household that

she is obliged to take care of with her limited financial and other resources,

may be compromised by the birth of a child. These are the decisions taken

by responsible women who have few other options. If a woman does not

want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so

represents the violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates

her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health.

45. It was highlighted in High Court in its own motion vs. State of

Maharashtra (supra) that women may be in different situations; she may be

a working woman or homemaker or a prisoner; however, they all form one

common category of a pregnant women. They all have same rights in

relation to their pregnancy. It was observed that Section 3(2)(b)(i) bestows a

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 19 of 28

precious right on a pregnant woman to say no to motherhood. It is a right

which has to be respected as a Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India as also a basic human right.

46. The right of exercise of reproductive choice, though is restricted by

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, it also recognizes and protects her

right to say no to the pregnancy, if her mental or physical health is at stake.

47. In the case of XYZ vs. Union of India, (2019) 3 Bom CR 400, Division

Bench of Bombay High Court in the same way, had interpreted the

expression „grave injury‟ in Section 3(2) of the Act. In the liberal sense, the

question included the determination whether continuance of pregnancy

would involve risk of injury to mental health of the pregnant woman. It was

held that provisions of the Act had to be given purposive interpretation.

Further, it was held that the aspect of a pregnant woman‟s actual or

reasonable foreseeable environment has greater nexus to the aspect of

mental health as compared to physical health.

48. In X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of

NCT of Delhi and Anr., (2023) 9 SCC 433, the Apex Court while dealing

with whether Rule 3-B includes unmarried women, single women, or

women without a partner under its ambit, delved into the aspects of the

purposive interpretation of the statute, and transcending the institution of

marriage as a source of rights. Further, the Apex Court took note of the

modern atypical forms of familial relationships. It was held that as per the

legislations, both married and unmarried women have equal decisional

autonomy to make significant choices regarding their own welfare. Further,

with regard to the object of the MTP Act, it was found that the whole tenor

of the legislation is to provide access to safe and legal medical abortions to

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 20 of 28

women, and being a beneficial legislation, the provisions of the MTP Act

and MTP Rules must be imbued with a purposive construction. It was

observed that the MTP Amendment Act 2021 extended the benefit of the

statute to all women. In addition to the aforesaid discussion, the Apex Court

further interpreted the term “injury to mental health” and held as follows:

“65. One of the grounds on the basis of which termination

of pregnancy may be carried out is when the continuance of

a pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the mental

health of the woman. The expression “grave injury to her

physical or mental health” used in Section 3(2) is used in an

overarching and all-encompassing sense. The two

Explanations appended to Section 3(2) provide the

circumstances under which the anguish caused by a

pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to

the mental health of a woman.

***

68. The expression “mental health” has a wide connotation

and means much more than the absence of a mental

impairment or a mental illness. The World Health

Organisation defines “mental health” as a state of “mental

well-being that enables people to cope with the stresses of

life, realise their abilities, learn well and work well, and

contribute to their community”. [ World Health

Organisation, “Promoting Mental Health : Concepts,

Emerging Evidence, Practice (Summary Report)” (2004).]

The determination of the status of one's mental health is

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 21 of 28

located in one's self and experiences within one's

environment and social context. Our understanding of the

term “mental health” cannot be confined to medical terms

or medical language, but should be understood in common

parlance. The MTP Act itself recognises the need to look

at the surrounding environment of the woman when

interpreting injury to her health. Section 3(3) states that

while interpreting “grave injury to her physical or mental

health”, account may be taken of the pregnant woman's

actual or reasonably foreseeable environment. The

consideration of a woman's “actual or reasonably

foreseeable environment” becomes pertinent, especially

when determining the risk of injury to the mental health of

a woman.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

49. In discussing the right to dignity in terms of the MTP Act, it was

observed that:

“114. A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective

of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is wanted, it is

equally shared by both the partners. However, in case of an

unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably

falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and

physical health. Article 21 of the Constitution recognises

and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of

pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake.

Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 22 of 28

her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the

question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion.

115. The right to dignity encapsulates the right of every

individual to be treated as a self-governing entity having

intrinsic value. It means that every human being possesses

dignity merely by being a human, and can make self-

defining and self-determining choices. Dignity has been

recognised as a core component of the right to life and

liberty under Article 21.

116. If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to

carry their pregnancies to term, the State would be

stripping them of the right to determine the immediate and

long-term path their lives would take. Depriving women of

autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their

lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to

choose for oneself — be it as significant as choosing the

course of one's life or as mundane as one's day-to-day

activities — forms a part of the right to dignity. It is this

right which would be under attack if women were forced to

continue with unwanted pregnancies.

***

122. In the context of abortion, the right to dignity entails

recognising the competence and authority of every woman

to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to

terminate the pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in

every individual, it is susceptible to violation by external

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 23 of 28

conditions and treatment imposed by the State. The right of

every woman to make reproductive choices without undue

interference from the State is central to the idea of human

dignity. Deprivation of access to reproductive healthcare or

emotional and physical well-being also injures the dignity of

women.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

50. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the mental

trauma that a woman facing marital discord, can cause severe mental health

issues leading to both, physical and mental harm, which cannot be brushed

aside lightly and must be considered in the right perspective, in the given

circumstances.

51. This significant concern has found its way into the MTP Act by way

of a recent amendment to Rule 3-B by a Medical Termination Of Pregnancy

(Amendment) Rules, 2021, which reads as under:-

“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;

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 24 of 28

(f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of

being incompatible with life or if the child is born it

may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities

to be seriously handicapped; and

(g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or

disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by

the Government.”

52. Despite the enactment of MTP Act, number of hurdles continued to

prevent full access to safe and legal abortions, pushing women to avail of

clandestine, unsafe abortions. These barriers include insufficient

infrastructural facilities, lack of awareness, social stigma, and failure to

ensure confidential care. In some situations, unmarried women face

particular barriers due to gender stereotypes about a women‟s sexual

autonomy outside marriage. These barriers are a serious impediment and

deter a woman to seek safe and legal abortions and also become a major

contributory factor to delay in accessing abortion services.

53. By framing Rule 3-B, the legislature addressed the mischief, so to

speak of a woman being unable to access abortions when their lives

underwent significant changes impacting their physical and mental health.

The common thread running through each of the categories of the woman

mentioned in Rule 3-B, is that the woman is in unique and often difficult

circumstances with respect to her physical, social, mental or financial health.

This Rule is based on an acknowledgment of reality that survivors of

offence may face immense stigma if and when they share the fact of their

assault with others including family members.

54. In order to avail the benefit of Rule 3-B(a), a woman need not

necessarily seek recourse to formal legal proceedings to prove the factum of

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 25 of 28

sexual assault, rape or incest. Neither Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) nor Rule

3-B(a) require that the offender be tried under IPC or any other criminal law

for the time being in force, before a pregnant woman can access an abortion.

55. Rule 3-B(c) states that a “change in the marital status during the

ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce) renders women eligible for

termination of their pregnancy under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act.” The

impact of the continuance of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman's physical

or mental health should take into consideration various social, economic,

and cultural factors operating in her actual or reasonably foreseeable

environment, as provided in Section 3(3). The rationale behind Rule 3-B(c)

is comparable to the rationale for Rule 3-B(g) i.e. a change in a woman's

material circumstances during the ongoing pregnancy.

56. Rule 3-B(c) is based on the broad recognition of the fact that a change

in the marital status of a woman often leads to a change in her material

circumstances which may arise when a married woman divorces her

husband or when he dies, as is recognised in the examples provided in

parenthesis in Rule 3-B(c).

57. When a woman separates from or divorces her partner, it may be that

she is in a different and possibly less advantageous position financially.

There is also a likelihood that a woman is abandoned by her family or a

partner. She may no longer have the financial resources to raise a child.

Moreover, a woman in this situation, may not be prepared to raise a child as

a single parent or by co-parenting with her former partner.

58. Pertinently, Rule 3-B does not enumerate all the potential changes

that a woman‟s material circumstances may undergo. It merely specifies

some of the potential changes to a woman‟s material circumstances, in

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 26 of 28

Clauses (c), (f) and (g). It is evident that it is not the intention of the

legislature to restrict the benefit of Section 3(2)(b) and Rule 3-B only to

women who may be confronted with a material alteration in the

circumstances of their lives in the limited situations enumerated in Rule 3-B.

Rather, the benefit granted by this Rule must be understood as extending to

all women who undergo a change of material circumstances.

59. The right of a woman who is having a marital discord, to terminate

the pregnancy was considered by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in

the case of X vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 29402/2022, decided on

26.09.2022 wherein after referring the Rule 3-B, it was held that in terms of

the Rule, a woman undergoing marital discord is entitled to the

termination of pregnancy; more so, as the MTP Act does not contain any

proof requiring a woman to obtain the husband‟s permission for termination

of pregnancy. The reason is that it is a woman who bears the stress and

strain of the pregnancy and the delivery. A woman who was undergoing

marital discord was, therefore, allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

60. Similar aspect came up for consideration before High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Indore in X vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), which

was decided on 23.06.2023 wherein also the married woman was facing

matrimonial litigation and cases under Section 498A, 294, 323 IPC and

Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She sought termination of

pregnancy of 16 weeks. The High Court after referring the case of Principal

Secretary, NCT of Delhi (supra) and the decision in X vs. Union of India

(supra), W.P.(C) No. 29402/2022, allowed the woman to let the pregnancy

be terminated.

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 27 of 28

61. In the present case as well, the lady was 14 weeks pregnant, when she

took the decision of terminating the pregnancy on account of marital

discord, as is mentioned in the OPD Card dated 16.08.2022.

62. The main contention raised by the Respondent/ husband was that till

that date, they were living together and there was no marital discord. It is

only subsequently that the Petitioner left the matrimonial home and the

decision of her getting separated from the husband, got manifested. Since on

the day she gave her consent for pregnancy, there existed no marital discord,

she cannot place reliance on the MTP Act and the Rules framed therein.

63. While the marital discord may not have manifested itself till then, but

from the reasons given by the Petitioner in the OPD Card, it is evident that

she already felt the stress of marriage and had taken a decision to separate

from the husband. The marital discord cannot be overstretched to interpret

that it becomes applicable only after the parties have separated and litigation

has commenced.

64. 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 and therefore, she was competent to seek her abortion. The

concerned Doctor also mentioned in the OPD Card that in view of the

judgments of September, 2022, abortion cannot be denied and she went

ahead with the abortion.

Conclusion:

65. In the light of aforesaid discussion, when the Apex Court in its

aforementioned judgments, has recognized the autonomy of a woman to

seek abortion in the situation of a marital discord which can impact her

mental health, and also the provision of Section 3 MTP Act and the Rules

CRL.M.C. 7984/2025 Page 28 of 28

framed therein, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC was

committed by the Petitioner.

66. The Order of learned ASJ upholding the Order of the learned MM is

therefore, set aside and the Petitioner is discharged.

67. The Petition is accordingly allowed and the pending Applications are

disposed of accordingly.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)

JUDGE

JANUARY 06, 2026/RS/N