The Division Bench of Delhi High Court refused to grant interim relief to 25 years old-woman in view of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules 2003 which does not allow the unmarried woman to abort her pregnancy of more than 20 weeks out of a consensual sexual relationship. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was a 25 years old unmarried woman, who was carrying a single intrauterine pregnancy. Her pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship and later her partner refused to marry her. There are plethora of judgments speaking when the boy does not fulfil his promise then in such a situation the sexual intercourse will be considered as rape because the consent was obtained by a way of fraud, and it is also possible that she may not have consented for the same if he would not have promised to marry.

 

The MTP Act has given women in India reproductive rights and autonomy and this sentiment has been echoed by the Supreme Court through various judgments. The two Explanations to this section create as presumption that if the pregnancy is caused by rape or that the pregnancy was due to failure of any device or method used by “any married woman” or “her husband” for the purpose of limiting the number of children, then the “anguish” caused by such a pregnancy would be presumed to cause injury to the mental health of the woman. It is important to note that Section 3 of the MTP Act, barring Explanation II, is applicable to all women as no status is specifically mentioned, and therefore the term “pregnant woman” or “pregnancy” is used, which does not indicate the marital status of the pregnant woman.

 

Thus there can be two derivations from the above paras that consent for sexual intercourse obtained through fraud is rape and secondly even the unmarried pregnant women are covered under the MTP Act and can’t be denied benefit. Further, looking at the ambiguity, limitations and lacunae, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020[ (“the Bill”) was passed by the Lok Sabha on 02.03.2020. It was thereafter introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 18.03.2020 and is yet to be passed by the Upper House. the Bill proposes to amend the Explanation to Section 3 (2) by amending the term “married woman” to replace it with “any woman” and by amending the term “husband” to replace it with the term “partner”. This proposed amendment can be regarded as being progressive and liberal as it ends the statutory discrimination against unmarried women and includes all women and their partners, notwithstanding the marital status between them, to fall under the presumptive exception created by the section.

In the light of this, would it be appropriate to deny the benefit to unmarried woman being also violative of article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

One thought on “Is it appropriate to deny the benefit of MTP Act to unmarried woman”
  1. This is one issue that has plagued India, more due to moral reasons than practical reasons.

    It is no one’s business to dictate a lady how to conduct herself.

    After seeing the life in Australia, I find Indian mentality to be still that prevalent 200 years ago.

    And specially after reading the news of Elon Musk’a 79-yr old father, who got a second baby with less than half his age step-daughter, reading Indian court’s decision in this regard speaks volumes of our so called male-dominated Society.
    If you have read, USA Supreme Court also denied consent to 10yr old girl, who was raped, to terminate her pregnancy.

    She travelled to a different place to get MTP done.

    It is so disturbing even to read that news – 10 yrs old girl who is herself a kid and does not know what it is all about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.