916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12194 OF 2025 X Y Z VERSUS The Stae Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Another … • Mrs. Vanita H. Sangole Jaitmal, Advocate for the Petitioner • Mrs. P. R. Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - State … CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 07, 2025 ORDER : (PER HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.) 1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India presents a extremely human and distressing situation which lies in the clutches of law, medicine and morality. The victim herein is a 30 year old woman suffering from mild intellectual disability. She has been residing at the Sakhi One-Stop Center, Parbhani, under the orders of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parbhani. Her present pregnancy is not the result of a consensual relationship but a tragic outcome of alleged sexual violence, for which an FIR bearing No. 676 of 2025, dated 19.09.2025, has been registered with Jhs/ 1/10 2025:BHC-AUG:28412-DB 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 Gangakhed Police Station, Parbhani. Through this petition, the petitioner, who appears to be the husband of victim, seeks a direction from this Court for permitting the medical termination of her pregnancy, which, as on the date of hearing, has reached a gestational age of 29 weeks and 6 days. 2. The victim underwent an obstetric sonography at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Parbhani, on 19.09.2025, which confirmed the presence of a single live intrauterine foetus of 27 weeks and 3 days. The expected date of delivery, as assessed by the doctors, is 16.12.2025. Further, an intelligence quotient (I.Q.) assessment carried out by the Government Medical College, Nanded, on 23.09.2025, placed the victim’s I.Q. at 66, which corresponds to the mental age of 10 years and 6 months child, thus, indicating mild intellectual disability. It is stated that the victim’s husband and mother have abandoned her and there is absolutely no family support and financial independence to the victim. The present petition, therefore, arises out of the need to secure her bodily integrity, psychological health and dignity. However, we have to assess the present petition within the statutory constraints imposed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short, the MTP Act). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this Court to exercise its jurisdiction in a manner that protects the mental and Jhs/ 2/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 physical well-being of the victim. It was also submitted that the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault, which has caused immense trauma to the victim, and owing to her mental condition, she lacks the emotional and cognitive capacity to understand motherhood or to take care of a child. It was further argued that forcing the victim to carry the pregnancy to its full term would constitute cruel and degrading treatment, which is contrary to her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The victim’s advocate, in support of her argument, relied upon the recent decision passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9899 of 2025, wherein permission to terminate a pregnancy of 26 weeks and 5 days was granted. In respect of protecting the victim’s right to reproductive autonomy being an integral part of her right to dignity and privacy. 4. Learned AGP appearing for the State has placed before us the report submitted by the Medical Board constituted at the Government Medical College and Hospital, Parbhani, dated 07.10.2025. The report records that the victim suffers from mild intellectual disability with psychosis (NOS). The foetus is alive, measuring approximately 12 cm and weighing around 1382 gms. The report further notes that the foetus exhibits no structural or congenital abnormalities and that the continuation of pregnancy does not pose any life threatening risk to the victim. Upon this report, the learned AGP submitted that Jhs/ 3/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 neither of the statutory exceptions mentioned under Section 3(2-B) or Section 5 of the MTP Act are attracted in the present case. The learned AGP rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another; (2024) 5 SCR 470. 5. Before we proceed to examine the medical opinion, it is necessary to restate the constitutional guarantees that govern such cases. The Constitution of India, through Article 14, 19 and 21 guarantees every individual the right to live with dignity, autonomy and bodily integrity. For women, and particularly for women who are victims of sexual assault, these rights are not abstract ideals but they are living assurances that the law will not compound their trauma. The Supreme Court, in the case of Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration; (2009) 9 SCC 1, held as under :- “24. The Explanations to Section 3 have also contemplated the termination of pregnancy when the same is the result of a rape or a failure of birth control methods since both of these eventualities have been equated with a “grave injury to the mental health” of a woman.” 6. Thus Court observes that the right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity includes the right to decide whether or not to bear a child. These pronouncements affirm that reproductive autonomy Jhs/ 4/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 must be respected not merely as a matter of medical judgment but also as a constitutional entitlement. 7. Yet, the fundamental duty of this Court is to ensure that its empathy does not transgress and it stay within the limits and boundaries of law. The MTP Act is a welfare legislation intended to balance a woman’s right to autonomy with the protection of potential life. While the 2021 amendments to the Act liberalized the framework by extending the upper gestational limit to 24 weeks in certain categories of women, including survivors of rape and women with mental disabilities, the statute still places a ceiling on termination beyond 24 weeks, except under two narrowly defined exceptions in Section 3(2-B), in cases, where the Medical Board certifies that the foetus suffers from substantial abnormalities, or Section 5, where termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. Thus, the Court must act within this statutory framework, even while interpreting it in the light of constitutional values. 8. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) (Supra), the Court approach to such petitions has consistently been guided by the expert opinion of a duly constituted Medical Board. The judicial function is not to substitute medical expertise but to ensure that the medical assessment is taken into consideration as Jhs/ 5/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 they are expert from the medical field. The Medical Board’s report in the present case, unequivocally records that the foetus is viable, with normal growth parameters and no congenital abnormalities. It further does not state that there is any risk or threat to the petitioner’s life or health from continuation of the pregnancy. In the absence of such medical findings, neither of the two statutory exceptions provided under Section 3(2-B) or Section 5 of the MTP Act can be invoked. 9. This Court, therefore, cannot grant permission for termination of pregnancy beyond 29 weeks merely on the basis of mental incapacity of the victim, though this Court has full sympathy with her, concerning her mental state. The Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) (Supra), emphasizes that while reproductive autonomy must be protected, the viability of the foetus and the medical risk to the mother are paramount consideration once the pregnancy crosses the stage of viability. To this regard, these considerations would amount to judicial legislation and we, under Article 226 of the Constitution, are required to abstain from doing so. 10. The present case, thus, brings us into the limits of legal intervention in matters where the law has not yet evolved to account for the stressful experiences of vulnerable women. The victim herein, is a victim of circumstances beyond her comprehension. Her mental Jhs/ 6/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 age, as recorded, is that of a child, and yet she carries within her a foetus nearing full term. The anguish of such condition cannot be captured merely in medical terms. However, this Court must consider the facts carefully and ensure that, in seeking to protect her dignity, it does not transgress the statutory safeguards that Parliament has enacted. This Court needs to balance the “right of a woman to choose” with the “right of unborn child to his or her potential life”. Here though the FIR is lodged by husband of the victim, it appears that he has refused to maintain victim, may be on account of alleged history of rape upon the victim. We do not want to make any comment upon the theory of rape as it may adversely affect the prosecution story which is at investigation stage now. 11. The Court’s refusal to permit termination in such circumstances does not mean a withdrawal of protection to the petitioner. On the contrary, it obliges the State to ensure that the petitioner is not left alone to bear the burden of an unwanted pregnancy or the responsibilities that fall thereafter. The Supreme Court in the case of the A (Mother of X) (Supra), has held that where the Court is unable to permit termination due to statutory limitations, it must ensure the continued welfare of the woman and the child. The constitutional responsibility extends beyond the courtrooms into the domain of administrative governance. Jhs/ 7/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 12. In light of the above discussion, while this Court cannot grant permission for termination at the advance stage of gestation, we are equally conscious of the State’s obligation to protect and rehabilitate the victim. Accordingly, the following directions are issued :- a) The victim shall continue to remain under the medical care and supervision of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Parbhani, until such time as the delivery is safely completed. The medical institution shall provide her with all necessary prenatal and postnatal care, including psychiatric support, counselling and medication as may be advised by specialists in obstetrics and psychiatry. b) The State of Maharashtra shall bear all expenses associated with the victim’s medical treatment, nutrition, hospitalization and rehabilitation. A separate fund shall be earmarked by the Department of Women and Child Development for this purpose, and the Dean of the Medical College shall be authorized to draw upon it directly. c) The Sakhi One-Stop center shall ensure that the victim is provided with a trained female attendant and physiological counsellor throughout the remainder of her pregnancy. The counsellor shall submit fortnightly reports to the District Jhs/ 8/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 Women and Child Welfare Officer regarding her mental and emotional condition. d) Upon delivery, if the victim is unable to take care of the new born or her lawful guardian, if any expresses unwillingness or inability to care for the child, the Child Welfare committee, Parbhani, shall forthwith take custody of the newborn and initiate proceedings under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, for placement into foster care or adoption through a recognized agency, in accordance with law. e) The District Collector, Parbhani, shall constitute a monitoring committee comprising the Civil Surgeon, Superintendent of Police, and the District Child Protection Officer to oversee the implementation of these directions and to ensure that the victim is not subjected to neglect, abuse or coercion at any stage. A compliance report shall be submitted to this Court within eight weeks of the victim’s delivery. 13. This Court, in declining the relief sought, does not close its eyes to the human suffering involved. The judgment, therefore, seeks to ensure that while statutory limits are respected, the victim’s dignity, health and future are fully protected by the State. The Jhs/ 9/10 916 WP NO. 12194 OF 2025 Constitutional guarantees of a life with dignity must not end with the denial of medical termination; on the contrary, State must step in for welfare, rehabilitation and protection of the petitioner. 14. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands disposed of with the directions contained herein. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) Jhs/ 10/10