Bombay HC: Financial, mental state not grounds to abort first pregnancy

MUMBAI: A 39-year-old married woman will have to continue her first pregnancy, which has exceeded 23 weeks, as the Bombay high court on Tuesday said that the couple’s “financial condition” or her mental preparedness to be a mother at an “advanced age” was not reason enough to permit its termination, as sought by her.
The pregnancy occurred from a failed contraception, said the woman.
She sought the required court approval, as apart from poor finances she was “not mentally prepared” and would suffer “physical and mental agony over the unwanted pregnancy”.
A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Riyaz Chagla held that the argument of agony over unwanted pregnancy would not be applicable since it was the woman’s first pregnancy.
A medical board set up by the high court had also not recommended the termination of the pregnancy.
The anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman, argued the woman’s counsel, Yashasvita Apte and Harshad Bhadbade, as they pointed to a provision under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
State lawyer M P Thakur, opposing the plea, said there were “no legal grounds” to permit MTP. Citing an earlier high court ruling on the law, the state said such permission to abort over such mental agony in an unwanted pregnancy after a failed contraception would apply only to married women who already had a child and were obliged to care for the family with limited financial resources, and where such care may be compromised by the birth of another baby.
Agreeing with the state, the high court concluded: “The anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy which would be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman, is non-existent in the facts of the present case.”
Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971, bars termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.
For any termination beyond 20 weeks, a woman must first seek the high court approval as set out in a landmark ruling last April.