The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a married woman’s plea to terminate her nearly 26-week pregnancy, holding that a consensual pregnancy conceived within a subsisting marriage cannot be terminated merely because the couple developed differences after conception.The Supreme Court’s decision came despite the woman’s counsel maintaining that she was unwilling to continue the pregnancy.A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said the case was distinct from those involving rape survivors, minors or other statutory exceptions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, and that the relief sought could not be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case.“We are not inclined to permit her...here is a marriage, a consensual relationship and conceiving of a child...differences of opinion can occur at any time,” said the bench, adding that it was not creating any right in favour of the husband but questioning whether a wife could unilaterally terminate a consensual pregnancy merely because she had differences with her spouse.“She might have issues with her husband but that should not extend to the womb. Why should she not have the child just because she has a problem with her husband?” asked the court, dismissing the woman’s petition after hearing both sides and interacting with the couple.The court’s decision came despite the woman’s counsel maintaining that she was unwilling to continue the pregnancy.

The woman, who had earlier alleged mental harassment and humiliation by her husband, told the bench that he had circulated a video among family members and friends questioning her character and alleging an extramarital relationship.The husband, who appeared before the court, said he had attempted reconciliation but the woman had made it conditional on his agreeing to the termination.His counsel submitted that he had filed an affidavit on November 2 offering an unconditional apology and had removed the chats and video circulated on the family WhatsApp group. He also said the husband was willing to remain unmarried and take care of the child even if his wife did not wish to do so.The woman’s counsel argued that the pregnancy was causing immense mental trauma and that her decision was rooted in her privacy and decisional autonomy.

She also referred to the medical opinion recording her psychological distress and said the woman was firm that she did not want to continue either the pregnancy or the marriage.The bench, however, noted that the pregnancy was consensual and had crossed the 24-week statutory limit under the MTP law. It questioned whether the extraordinary jurisdiction of a constitutional court under Article 142 should be exercised to permit termination in such circumstances.Advocate Devanshi Singh, appearing for Maharashtra, opposed the plea, submitting that the pregnancy was beyond 24 weeks and did not fall within any of the exceptions under the MTP Act.

She said the foetus was viable and would be born even if the Supreme Court permitted termination under Article 142, adding that the court would have to consider the implications of stopping the heartbeat of a nearly 26-week foetus.Singh cautioned that allowing the plea could set a precedent for women seeking termination at much later stages of pregnancy by citing marital discord. “This court will have to draw a line somewhere,” she said, adding that the law imposed restrictions that could not be overlooked.The bench acknowledged the statutory limitations but said the question before it was whether constitutional powers could be invoked in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It also observed that the woman could leave the marriage if she wished, but the husband was not willing to abandon the child.The bench also explored whether the birth of the child could offer the couple an opportunity to reconsider their differences.

When asked whether she could give reconciliation another chance, the woman said there was no possibility of getting back together.“Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we say that the prayers sought for in this petition cannot be granted,” said the bench, dismissing the petition while clarifying that the pleadings filed in the proceedings would not prejudice either party in any subsequent litigation.The dispute had reached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court on October 26 dismissed the woman’s plea, holding that her case did not fall within the statutory categories permitting termination up to 24 weeks under the MTP Act and Rules.The high court had noted that the couple remained married, the foetus had no congenital anomalies and the allegations of continuous mental cruelty and harassment had not been established.A medical board constituted by Grant Government Medical College and Sir JJ Group of Hospitals in Mumbai had recorded that the woman was in a fragile psychological state and that her mental agony could worsen if the pregnancy continued. It had opined that termination could be undertaken, while cautioning that the baby might require neonatal intensive care and its prognosis might remain poor despite such care.The Supreme Court had, during its earlier hearings, urged the couple to give their six-month-old marriage another chance and directed the husband to withdraw allegations against his wife and tender an apology on the family WhatsApp group.

The husband subsequently filed an affidavit expressing unconditional regret, but the woman remained opposed to continuing the pregnancy.