Woman Alone Bears the Burden – Her Right to Abort Cannot Be Criminalised for Marital Discord: Delhi High Court Quashes Section 312 IPC

“Unborn Foetus Cannot Be Placed Above Living Woman – Mental Health Is Not Just Neurological, It Includes Emotional Distress from Marital Discord”, In a landmark judgment that reiterates and strengthens a woman's constitutional right to reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition of a married woman and quashed her summoning under Section 312 IPC, which penalises causing miscarriage without the woman's consent. The Court ruled that termination of a 14-week pregnancy by the petitioner Sanya Bhasin, carried out under medical supervision in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, could not constitute a criminal offence, particularly when done on account of mental stress due to marital discord.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna holding that there was no unlawful intention or mala fide motive in the petitioner’s action and that the right to reproductive choice, grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, had been impermissibly criminalised by the lower courts.

“The very fact that the woman was stressed and felt that there was marital discord created a situation where such stress was likely to impact her mental health and therefore, she was competent to seek abortion,” the Court observed.

“Mental Health Cannot Be Interpreted Narrowly – Law Must Account for a Woman’s Lived Realities”

Tracing the statutory and constitutional landscape, the Court held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, read with Rule 3-B of the 2021 MTP Rules, clearly recognises marital discord as a legitimate basis for abortion, particularly when it risks the mental health of the pregnant woman.

The petitioner had terminated her pregnancy at 14 weeks, well within the statutory limit of 20 weeks under Section 3 of the MTP Act. The termination was carried out at a registered clinic based on medical advice and documented as being necessitated by marital discord.

Refusing to accept the husband’s argument that “no discord existed” at the time of termination, the Court firmly held, “Marital discord cannot be overstretched to interpret that it becomes applicable only after the parties have separated and litigation has commenced.”

Justice Krishna underlined the broad and purposive interpretation of “mental health” under the MTP Act:

“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 judgment emphasized that a woman's actual or reasonably foreseeable environment is central to assessing her mental health. Thus, stress from deteriorating marital conditions is not only relevant but sufficient to justify abortion under the law.

“Criminal Law Cannot Be a Weapon to Punish Women for Exercising Bodily Autonomy”

The case arose from a private criminal complaint filed by the petitioner’s estranged husband Himanshu Sarpal, accusing her of multiple offences, including Section 312 IPC, for terminating their unborn child. While the Metropolitan Magistrate had summoned her for several offences, the Revisional Court (ASJ) reduced it only to Section 312 IPC.

That summoning was now overturned by the High Court, holding it to be an “abuse of process”.

“There was no prima facie evidence of criminal intent or unlawful action by the Petitioner,” said the Court, pointing out that the abortion was conducted in accordance with statutory safeguards and with medical certification citing mental health concerns.

Referring to landmark precedents such as Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (2023), the Court reiterated:

“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… which would be under attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies.”

The Court held that the criminal complaint failed to satisfy the essential elements of Section 312 IPC, which penalises causing miscarriage voluntarily unless done in good faith to save the woman’s life.

“‘Good faith’ is an express Exception under Section 312 IPC,” the Court noted, adding that the Petitioner underwent the procedure only after a medical opinion was formed about her mental distress and that the pregnancy could not be safely carried forward in such circumstances.

“MTP Act is a Shield, Not a Trap – A Woman's Right to Abort Must Be Protected, Not Prosecuted”

Importantly, the Court emphasised that the MTP Act was not merely an exception to penal provisions under IPC but a standalone protective legislation designed to enable safe and legal abortions, especially in complex social contexts.

Justice Krishna remarked:

“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 MTP Act, which regulates and puts reasonable restrictions on this right of a woman.”

Referring to Rule 3-B(c) of the MTP Rules, which extends the abortion limit to 24 weeks in cases of change in marital status such as widowhood or divorce, the Court gave it a purposive interpretation to include situations where women, even though not formally separated, experience mental stress due to marital discord.

This interpretation aligns with earlier decisions of the Bombay, Kerala, and Madhya Pradesh High Courts, which have held that termination of pregnancy in emotionally abusive or hostile marriages is legally valid and constitutionally protected.

The Delhi High Court has made it resoundingly clear that criminal law cannot intrude into a woman’s reproductive decisions, especially when exercised within the bounds of medical and legal protocols.

The summoning of Sanya Bhasin under Section 312 IPC was held to be contrary to the statutory protections under the MTP Act, violative of her fundamental right to bodily autonomy, and an abuse of the criminal process.

“In the light of the Apex Court judgments and the statutory scheme under the MTP Act, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 IPC was committed by the Petitioner,” the Court concluded.

The petition was allowed, and the Petitioner discharged from all criminal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 6 January 2026