In a petition filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), to challenge an order dated 13-08-2025 whereby the Trial Court upheld the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, summoning the petitioner (wife) for an offence punishable under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside the impugned summoning orders and discharged the wife of all charges.
A criminal complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), was filed for offences under Sections 182/192/195/196/312/379/384/406/420/500/506/34/120B of the IPC by the husband (respondent 2) of the petitioner. He mentioned that he met the petitioner on Shaadi.com in 2021 and that they got married in 2022, as per the Hindu rites.
The husband asserted that he was put under unwarranted pressure to organise the wedding functions by the accused persons, who emotionally blackmailed him on the pretext that the wife’s mother had passed away. He was made to pay for the entire amount for the engagement function.
It was also alleged that after the marriage, the wife demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- from her husband for opening a new office along with her brother on a false assurance that the money would be returned. The husband further claimed that the wife failed to fulfil her matrimonial duties and tried to separate him from his parents. The wife earned more than Rs. 1,37,500/- from her job and also had undisclosed earnings from her business.
On 26-08-2022, the husband discovered that the wife was pregnant, and she eventually went to her parents’ house, claiming that she was sick, but refused to return until the husband made certain purchases. Thereafter, the wife underwent medical termination of the pregnancy of 14 weeks’ foetus on 09-10-2022. As a result, the husband filed a complaint for the registration of the subject First Information Report (FIR).
Upon considering the material on record, the Metropolitan Magistrate summoned the wife along with other accused persons. The summoning order was challenged by a revision petition, in which the summoning of the wife was upheld for an offence under Section 312 of the IPC, while she was discharged of all other offences.
The Court found it evident that the wife was 14 weeks pregnant and wished to terminate her pregnancy due to marital discord as well as her wish to seek divorce in the future. The Court stated that this case raised a question as to whether a woman could make a choice to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it within the specified period in Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).
The Court referred to the International Human Rights Law to dispel the moral dilemma regarding the right of the unborn child and said that the argument based on morality could not be placed on a pedestal while giving it over-emphasized importance when the rights of a pregnant woman, who suffers the pain of pregnancy alone, are being considered. It was said that control over reproduction is a basic need and a basic right of all women.
The Court stated that a woman’s reproductive rights may include the right to legal and safe abortion, the right to birth control, freedom from coerced sterilization and contraception, the right to access good quality reproductive health care, and informed reproductive choice, while referring to various cases in this regard.
The Court said that the right of choice of abortion, a 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. It was noted that Section 5 of the MTP Act could be evoked at any point in time if the registered medical practitioner is of the opinion that the termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman in good faith.
Further, the Court stated that the guiding light for correct interpretation of mental health is the phrase – woman’s actual reasonably foreseeable environment, which is mentioned in Section 3(3) of the MTP Act. The Court stated that the harsh reality of this misogynistic world could not be ignored while considering the mental trauma of a woman facing marital discord, which multiplies if she is pregnant.
The Court stated that if a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so is a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would harm her mental health. It was said that the concern regarding the mental trauma of a pregnant woman facing marital discord had found a way into the MTP Act by way of a recent amendment to Rule 3-B, whereby the difficulties of a woman being unable to access abortions while going through significant changes, causing an impact on their physical and mental health was addressed by the legislature.
It was noted that Rule 3-B did not enumerate all the potential changes that a woman’s material circumstances may undergo, but the Court found it evident that the intention of the legislature was not to restrict the benefit of Section 3(2)(b) and Rule 3-B only to women mentioned in the limited situations enumerated in the provision. Thus, the Court said that the benefit granted by the said rule must be understood as extending to all women who undergo a change of material circumstances.
The Court said that even though the marital discord may not have manifested till the day the wife gave her consent for pregnancy, the reasons given by her while going for an abortion made it evident that she was under stress and had taken a decision to separate from her husband. It was said that if the woman was stressed and felt that there was a marital discord due to which her mental health could be impacted, she was competent to seek an abortion.
Thus, the Court held that the wife had not committed an offence under Section 312 of the IPC, and the impugned orders were set aside while discharging the wife of the charges.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Mr. Atul Jain
For Respondent(s) – Mr. Shoaib Haider (APP), Ms. Shefali Menezes
