Husband has rights too: SC on abortion plea, marital discord
What's the story
The Supreme Court on Monday heard a woman's plea to terminate her over-six-month pregnancy. The woman cited marital discord with her husband as the reason for seeking the abortion, which was opposed by him. On the other hand, the husband argued that he has a right over the unborn child and pleaded with the court to not allow termination. The court observed that the father also has a right over the unborn child.
Legal proceedings
Where are we heading as a society: Court
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan heard the case.
They asked what society would come to if a woman could terminate a pregnancy just because she was ill-treated by her husband or in-laws.
"Where are we heading as a society if the wife says that she wants termination of pregnancy because of her fight with the husband and in-laws... What about the right of the father?"
Allegations withdrawn
Husband to withdraw allegations against wife
The court asked the husband to file an affidavit withdrawing all allegations against his wife as a first step toward reconciliation.
The bench stressed that marital disputes shouldn't be grounds for terminating a pregnancy.
It posted the case for Wednesday, asking him to submit the affidavit by then.
Father's rights
Every marital dispute shouldn't end in abortion decisions
The bench also emphasized that the father has a right over the unborn child.
"It is normal that wife talks against husband and husband talks against wife, but it does not mean that you have to terminate the pregnancy on that ground," they said.
The court stressed that every marital disagreement shouldn't lead to terminating a pregnancy, asking if every such dispute should end in abortion decisions.
Fetus health
Fetus healthy, no medical reasons for termination
The court also noted that the fetus was healthy and there were no medical reasons for termination.
A medical board had earlier said the woman's psychological state was fragile but advised caution if termination was undertaken.
The Bombay High Court had dismissed her plea on October 26, saying it didn't fall under statutory categories for termination up to 24 weeks under the MTP Act.