Accused Loses Right To Default Bail By Acquiescence If Extension Orders Are Challenged Only After Chargesheet Filing: Supreme Court AP High Court Orders Release Of Vehicle Seized For Mineral Transport Violations Upon Payment Of Penalty, Says Rules Don't Mandate Indefinite Detention Short Time Gap Between 'Last Seen' And Death Clinches Murder Conviction Against Fired Driver: Allahabad High Court Court Must Restore Possession To Dispossessed Party If Ex-Parte Decree Is Set Aside Even If Property Descriptions Differ: Andhra Pradesh High Court Management Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointment Citing Delay If It Failed To Maintain Service Records: Calcutta High Court Long Possession Alone Does Not Establish Tenancy; Burden Of Proof Lies On Person Claiming Status Of Tenant: Bombay High Court Consent Of Minor Immaterial: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction But Acquits Man Of Kidnapping Charges Notional Income Of Minor In Motor Accident Claims Must Be Based On Minimum Wages Of Skilled Workmen: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation To ₹56.8 Lakhs Revenue Records Serve Only Fiscal Purpose, Cannot Be Treated As Proof Of Title To Property: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Grant 'Deemed Extension' Of Time For Deposit In Specific Performance Decree: Supreme Court Specific Performance Decree Becomes Inexecutable If Balance Sale Consideration Not Deposited Within Stipulated Time: Supreme Court Supreme Court Protects MSMEs From Closure Over Missing Environmental Clearance If Pollution Boards Were Unaware Of Requirement Industrial Units Operating With Valid PCB Consents Can't Be Closed Merely For Technical Want Of Prior Environmental Clearance: Supreme Court Punishment On Charge Not Framed In Show Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Doctor's Penalty To Censure Plea Of Acquiescence Cannot Defeat Lawful Title Claim When Encroachment Is Established: Madras High Court Board Of Revenue Can't Quash Unchallenged Orders While Exercising Revisional Jurisdiction: Orissa High Court Penetration To Any Extent Sufficient For Offence Under POCSO Act; Intact Hymen No Bar For Conviction: Meghalaya High Court Expeditious Conclusion Of Summary Force Court Trial Not Arbitrary If Procedure Followed; ITBPF Act Self-Contained: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Doesn't Bar Appeal Filed Prior To Withdrawal Of Earlier Defective Appeal Against Same Order: Madhya Pradesh High Court Appointment Of Receiver Is An 'Extreme Remedy', Cannot Be Ordered Lightly Especially After Decades Of Inaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Medical Termination of Pregnancy on Grounds of Strained Relationship

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dismissed a writ petition (WPC No. 2768 of 2023) seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy. The petitioner, a married woman aged about 29 years, had approached the court requesting the termination of her pregnancy. However, the court, presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy, ruled that the grounds presented by the petitioner, which primarily involved strained relationship issues, did not fall under the permissible grounds specified in Section 3(2)(a)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The court noted that the petitioner had conceived from her husband, as acknowledged in the pleadings of the writ petition and supported by the marriage certificate enclosed as evidence. The judgment highlighted that the petitioner did not claim any sex crime committed against her without her consent or knowledge.

Referring to Section 3(2)(a)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the court emphasized that the continuation of the pregnancy could be terminated if there was a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or if there was a substantial risk that the child would be born with severe physical or mental abnormalities. The court further pointed out that strained relationships or issues arising in a marriage were not valid grounds for seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy under the Act.

Justice P. Sam Koshy observed that allowing such petitions on the grounds presented in this case would undermine the purpose and objectives of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The judgment reaffirmed that in India, abortion is considered a crime, and medical practitioners are only authorized to perform abortions in situations where there is a serious risk to the life, physical health, or mental health of the pregnant woman, or if there is a substantial risk of severe deformities or diseases to the unborn child.

High  court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner failed to establish grounds that would warrant the grant of permission for medical termination of pregnancy. The judgment serves as a reminder of the limited circumstances under which abortion is permissible in India and the importance of adhering to the provisions outlined in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Date of Decision: 22/06/2023

Xyz Nil  vs State Of Chhattisgarh

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/XYZ-v.-State-of-Chhattisgarh-^0-Ors-22-June-231.pdf"]

Latest Legal News