The Delhi High Court ruled that a married woman’s abortion, if done within the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, cannot be criminalised even when sought due to marital discord affecting her mental health. Quashing IPC Section 312 proceedings, the Court reaffirmed that a woman’s bodily autonomy and mental well-being override moral arguments against termination.
Delhi: In a significant ruling with wide implications for matrimonial litigation and misuse of criminal law, the Delhi High Court has clarified that a woman who lawfully terminates her pregnancy under medical supervision cannot be prosecuted under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code merely because of marital conflict.
The Court made it clear that criminal law cannot be stretched to convert a personal medical decision into a weapon in family disputes.
The petition was filed by Ms. Sanya Bhasin challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had upheld her summoning for the offence of causing miscarriage. The criminal complaint was filed by her husband, alleging cheating, extortion, criminal breach of trust and also accusing her of illegally aborting a 14-week foetus.
According to the husband, the marriage took place in April 2022. He alleged that he was emotionally manipulated into spending large amounts on the wedding and later forced to give money for business purposes. He further alleged strained relations, repeated financial demands, pressure to live separately, and threats of divorce. During this period, the wife became pregnant and later went to her parental home. She medically terminated the pregnancy in October 2022.
The High Court examined whether such a termination could attract criminal liability. It noted that abortion, when done within statutory limits and under proper medical supervision, is expressly protected by law. Medical records in the case clearly reflected that the pregnancy was within 14 weeks and the termination was carried out in a registered medical facility. The OPD record specifically stated:
“14 weeks pregnancy wants Termination of Pregnancy as there Marital discord & wish to seek divorce in future. According to Supreme Court Ruling in Sep 2022, it cannot be denied.”
The Court held that Section 312 IPC cannot override the protections granted by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. It underlined that “mental health” is a valid and serious consideration under the law and must be understood in a practical and real-life manner, not through rigid or theoretical standards. Stress arising from marital discord, uncertainty, instability and emotional pressure can directly impact mental well-being and justify medical opinion for termination.
Importantly, the Court rejected the argument that abortion becomes illegal merely because the couple was living together at the time or because formal separation had not yet taken place. It observed that marital stress and discord often exist much before they become visible in legal proceedings. The Court clearly stated:
“If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents the violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health.”
This ruling is equally important for husbands because courts are increasingly witnessing a pattern where multiple criminal sections are mechanically invoked to escalate matrimonial disputes and gain leverage. Allowing Section 312 IPC to be casually added would open the door for yet another layer of criminal exposure, making already fragile family conflicts more toxic, prolonged and irreversible.
At the same time, the judgment highlights a deeper reality that often goes unspoken. When marriages collapse, men also face emotional breakdown, social isolation, financial stress, legal uncertainty and reputational damage.
Many husbands silently carry the burden of prolonged litigation, maintenance pressures and criminal allegations without meaningful institutional emotional support. While the law rightly protects bodily autonomy, it must also remain vigilant that criminal law is not misused to emotionally and legally crush the other side.
True justice lies not in weaponizing laws but in maintaining balance, restraint and fairness. This ruling restores that balance by preventing criminal misuse, while reminding society that matrimonial conflicts affect both genders deeply.
Men, often expected to remain silent and resilient, remain among the most vulnerable stakeholders in the family court ecosystem — financially strained, emotionally exhausted and legally exposed, deserving equal empathy, procedural protection and reform-oriented policy thinking.
Explanatory Table – Laws & Sections Involved
| Law / Provision | Purpose | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) | Inherent powers of High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure justice | Petition was filed to quash the summoning order |
| Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | Old corresponding provision to Section 528 BNSS | Referenced as equivalent power |
| Section 312, Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Punishes causing miscarriage unlawfully | Wife was wrongly summoned under this section |
| Section 3, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 | Legal framework allowing abortion within prescribed limits | Court held abortion was legally protected |
| Section 5, MTP Act | Emergency termination to save woman’s life | Referred for interpretation |
| Rule 3-B, MTP Rules, 2021 | Categories of women eligible for extended abortion rights | Marital discord considered relevant |
| Article 21, Constitution of India | Right to life, privacy, bodily autonomy | Basis for reproductive autonomy |
Important Case Laws Involved
| Case Name | Conclusion | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Suchita Srivastava Case | Recognised reproductive autonomy | Used for constitutional interpretation |
| X v. Principal Secretary (2023) | Expanded abortion rights | Referred for bodily autonomy |
| K.S. Puttaswamy Case | Privacy and decisional autonomy | Relied upon |
| Bhajan Lal Case | Quashing abusive criminal proceedings | Cited by petitioner |
Case Summary
- Case Title: Ms. Sanya Bhasin vs The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr, CRL.M.C. 7984/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved on: 12 November 2025
- Judgment Pronounced on: 06 January 2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Mr. Atul Jain, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP
- For Respondent No.2: Ms. Shefali Menezes, Advocate
Key Takeaways
- Section 312 IPC cannot be added mechanically in matrimonial disputes when abortion is medically legal under the MTP Act.
- Criminal law is increasingly misused as pressure tactics against husbands during marital breakdowns.
- Courts must stop turning personal medical decisions into criminal leverage in family litigation.
- Marital conflict does not justify piling up criminal sections to harass the other spouse.
- Men remain legally vulnerable in matrimonial cases and deserve protection from abusive prosecutions.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
The idea is judiciary wants more money from the litigation. Based on this, it wants to force husbands to file for divorce and drag for years so that their coffers are being filled. Unless current judiciary is made accountable under gun point, none of this legal terrorism will stop against men in India.
I understand the frustration, but let’s stay legally accurate and grounded.
Courts do not make money from dragging cases—court fees are fixed and mostly nominal. The real problem is systemic delay, misuse of gender-biased laws, and zero accountability for false cases. Sections like IPC 498A, DV Act, and maintenance proceedings are often invoked without early scrutiny, while Section 340 CrPC (false evidence) and perjury provisions are rarely enforced. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly acknowledged misuse of matrimonial laws and the need for caution and safeguards.
Reform will come through strict scrutiny at the threshold, penalties for false cases, time-bound trials, and gender-neutral family laws—not through anger, but through constitutional accountability.