Punjab And Haryana High Court Expands MTP Act for Divorcing Women
Last Updated on August 23, 2024 by Amit Patra
Punjab & Haryana High Court has set a precedent by extending the rights under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP) Act to a woman who is waiting for divorce challenging the orthodox definition of the Act.
The case concerned a woman who sought permission to abort her pregnancy that was already 28 weeks, while the MTP Act allows such procedures at or before 24 weeks of pregnancy only. She got married in January 2024, but she got abandoned by her husband and her in-laws demanding for dowry. Since it was impossible for her to seek divorce since at least 1 year is needed before a marriage can be dissolved, she was left in a very complicated status legally.
Justice Vinod Bhardwaj opining while delivering the judgment said that the status of woman awaiting divorce is similar to that of a divorcee. Clarifying the concept of the “change of marital status” He noted that it should be understood not in the formal, literal sense, but in actuality, extracting the essentials of what has happened.
The court’s decision was based on these points:
- The woman’s clear desire to get a divorce.
- The kind of situation which involved her husband abandoning her.
- Furthermore, she was financially dependent on her parents.
- Her fundamental right to make decisions about her body and her reproductive decisions as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judge also cited the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Sarmistha Chakrabortty case where it was held that a woman’s right over her reproductive system forms part of her liberty. This ruling can be seen as expanding the coverage of the MTP Act as earlier amendments permitted abortion beyond 20 weeks only to some categories of women, such as divorcees and widows. It recognizes the stress and fatigue of the marital breakdown and especially before the divorce is complete.
The decision also shows sociopolitical and legal angles concerning marriage laws, reproductive rights, and people’s liberties. It critiques the suggestion that the procedural arrangements governing divorce which include statutory waiting periods should not be compromised where they limit a woman’s reproductive autonomy.
Even though it is a one-case judgment, it might act as the precedent for similar cases in the future and thus, shape the interpretation of the MTP Act and other related laws in the future. This ruling proves how the applied family law in India has changed over time and how the commands of the judiciary adapt the laws to the real life situations.
