A (Mother Of X) vs State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 883 Bom

Bombay High Court

A (Mother Of X) vs State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 27 January, 2026

Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge

Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge

2026:BHC-OS:2234-DB
        Digitally
        signed by
        GAURI AMIT
GAURI   GAEKWAD                                                               901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt
AMIT
GAEKWAD Date:
        2026.01.27
        21:13:42
        +0530
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2388 OF 2026
                     A (Mother of X)                                        ....Petitioner
                               Versus
                     The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                 ....Respondents
                                                     ----
                     Mr. Ashley D. Cusher a/w. Ms. Pooja S. Phagnekar, for the
                     Petitioner.
                     Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for the State.
                                                     ----
                                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                                            ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 27th JANUARY, 2026

P.C. :-

1. This is a case of two teenagers who had physical

relations and on getting impregnated, the mother of the girl lodged

an FIR in the Police station. The physical contact occurred in July

2025 and August 2025 at the home of the boy, when the girl was 17

years and 10 months old. Being born on 12.09.2007, she turned 18

on 11.09.2025. Today, she is 18 years, 4 months and 16 days old.

2. On 23rd January 2026, we had passed the following

order :

Sufiyan Syed - PA 1 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

1. The victim appears to be 16 or 17 years of age. Lured by the promise of marriage, she is now carrying a foetus, whose gestational age is around 26 to 27 weeks.

2. The learned AGP submits that the victim can be subjected to a Medical Examination by the Board, which is available with Respondent No. 3.

3. Since the learned AGP, as well as the learned Advocate for the Petitioner desired to take instructions, we granted to pass over for 15 minutes.

4. The learned AGP submits, on instructions, that she has been informed by a responsible Doctor working with Sir J.J. Hospital that the Medical Board can examine the Petitioner today and that the report would be delivered to the office of the Government Pleader by tomorrow evening.

5. In view of the above, we direct that the victim would be accompanied by her biological mother, who is the Informant in FIR No. 00003 registered on 2nd January, 2026 with Shrinagar Police Station, District Thane, and that the victim would be presented before the Medical Board at 3.00 p.m. today.

6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the victim and her mother have already started from Thane and would reach Sir J.J. Hospital within one and a half hours.

7. After the Medical Board conducts the examination, we expect an opinion on the following aspects :

(a) Whether medical termination of the pregnancy

Sufiyan Syed - PA 2 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

is possible;

(b) Whether a live foetus is likely to be born with a beating heart;

(c) Whether, by following a specific medical procedure, even a foetus with a gestational period of 27 weeks, can be terminated;

(d) Whether there is any risk to the life of the victim if such medical termination is carried out.

8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that this matter may be posted on Tuesday, i.e., 27th January, 2026.

9. Considering that the report is to be delivered to the office of the Government Pleader by tomorrow evening, i.e., 24th January, 2026 and keeping in view that 25th January, 2026 is a Sunday, we are listing this Petition on 27th January, 2026 at 11.00 a.m. in this Court, for perusal of the report and for passing further orders.

3. Today, the learned AGP has placed before us, the

Medical Report of the Medical Board of Sir. J. J. Group of Hospitals

dated 23.01.2026, which is signed by six Senior Specialists. Three

of them are Assistant Professors and Head of their respective

Departments, viz. Pediatrics, Medicine and Psychiatry. Two are

Professors and HOD of the Department of Radiology and

Anesthesia and one of them is the Associate Professor and Head of

the University Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the

Sufiyan Syed - PA 3 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

Grant Government Medical College and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals,

Mumbai. Each of them have submitted their individual opinions in

the common report. The compilation of the report (8 Pages) is taken

on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification.

4. We have supplied copies of the report to the learned

Advocate for the Petitioner, as well as the learned AGP.

Considering the remarks of the subject experts, we have heard the

learned Advocates.

5. We do not wish to reproduce the entire medical

opinion/report in this order. Suffice it to say that the report shall be

annexed to this order as Annexure 'X-1'.

6. The victim is born on 12.09.2007. The single live

intrauterine gestation is 28 weeks today. Each of the subject experts

have expressed clear opinions that a live foetus would be born with

a beating heart. The risks and complications affecting survival

would be the same as in a pregnancy continued to full term or

terminated at this stage. If the pregnancy is terminated now, the

foetus has a probability of being born alive and will require

Sufiyan Syed - PA 4 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

intensive neonatal care. The foetus may be affected by

complications related to its preterm status. A foetus more than 24

weeks will be born alive.

7. The reason spelt out by the victim to the Medical Board

is that she wishes to terminate the pregnancy, because it would

affect her career and future. All the Members of the Committee of

the Board agree that the foetus does not have any deformity or

anomaly. On Page No. 7, the Committee has expressed a

unanimous opinion as follows :

a) At present, termination of pregnancy bears the same risks and consequences as delivery at term (full term).

b) The pregnancy has crossed 24 weeks (currently 28 weeks), and the foetus does not suffer from any congenital anomalies.

c) If the High Court so directs, medical termination of pregnancy can be performed in view of the possibility of grave and irreparable harm to the survivor's psychological health.

d) The Sir. J. J. Hospital does not have the facility and expertise to perform the intrauterine foeticide and she may be referred to any approved and licensed center.

e) If the pregnancy is terminated now, the foetus may be born alive requiring neonatal intensive care with significant co-morbidity and mortality.

Sufiyan Syed - PA 5 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

8. The mother (Petitioner) of the said girl who is now an

adult, has lodged an FIR on 02.01.2026 with the concerned Police

Station. The Police Station has not recorded the statement of the

victim who was 18 years Adult on 02.01.2026. It is stated in the FIR

that the victim became friendly with a boy whose name is written in

the FIR on 03.05.2023. He was in attending the tuition classes and

they started knowing each other. Since the victim informed the

mother that she was not having her menstrual cycles, on 01.01.2026,

that she was medically examined and it was revealed that she had

come into physical contact with her male friend by visiting his home

on two occasions in different months prior to becoming 18 years of

age. Her male friend had promised her that he would marry her and

thereafter, forcibly had relations with her.

9. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has vehemently

canvassed that the victim does not desire to continue with the

pregnancy and it is her decision to have the pregnancy terminated.

Reliance is placed on the Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in XYZ v/s. The State of Gujarat & Ors. (Criminal

Appeal No.2487 of 2023) decided on 21.08.2023, wherein the

Sufiyan Syed - PA 6 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is the girl who has to

take a decision and if she does not desire to continue with the

pregnancy, she can seek medical termination to avoid the birth of a

child.

10. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner relies upon the

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v/s. State of

Maharashtra and Anr. dated 22.04.2024 passed in Special Leave to

Appeal (C) No.9163 of 2024. By the said order, medical termination

was permitted since the girl was 14 years of age and the foetus was

in the 29th gestational week. Since the minor was 14 years of age,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed the grave risk to her health and

permitted the termination of pregnancy.

11. The learned AGP has cited a Judgment delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court [Coram : Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,

C.J.I., and Hon'ble J. B. Pardiwala and Hon'ble Manoj Mishra, JJ.]

in X5 v/s. Union of India and Anr. (2024) 12 SCC 453, wherein the

Supreme Court considered a case of a viable foetus (the child would

be born with a beating heart). Termination of the pregnancy was

refused by the Court.The Medical Board constituted by AIIMS

Sufiyan Syed - PA 7 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

Delhi reported that there was no foetal abnormality in terms of

Section 3(2)-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in X5 (supra) recorded the

e-mail dated 10.10.2023 addressed by the Doctor from AIIMS, who

was a member of the Medical Board, to the Additional Solicitor

General stating that the foetus had a strong chance of survival and

directions were sought from the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to

whether the foetal heart beat ought to be stopped. The e-mail also

stated that if the foetal heart beat was not stopped, the baby would

be placed in an intensive care unit and that there was a high

possibility of immediate and long term physical and mental

disability. AIIMS sought a direction from the Court as to whether a

foeticide should be carried out. The ASG mentioned the case at

4.00 pm on 10.10.2023 before the Bench presided over by the

Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India.

13. In X5 (supra), the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court set out in Paragraph Nos. 16, 18, 19, 28, 29 and 30, can be

summarized as under :

 Sufiyan Syed - PA                      8 of 16





                                                               901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt




                 Provisions of MTP Act            and     Rules       and
                 applicability on facts

The MTP Act is a progressive legislation which regulates the manner in which pregnancies may be terminated. Section 3 spells out certain conditions which must be satisfied before a pregnancy can be terminated. The conditions depend upon the length of the pregnancy. The position of law can therefore be summarised as follows: If length of pregnancy is up to 20 weeks, the opinion of one RMP is required for termination in terms of Section 3(2); if it is between 20 and 24 weeks, opinion of two RMPs is required in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act read with Rule 3-B of the Rules for termination; and in case of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, if the termination is required to save the life of the pregnant woman, the opinion of one RMP in terms of Section 5 is required and if there are substantial foetal abnormalities, pregnancy can be terminated with the approval of the Medical Board in terms of Section 3(2-B) read with Rule 3-A(a)(i). (Paras 16 and 20)

The Medical Board has the power to allow or deny the termination of a pregnancy the length of which is beyond twenty-four weeks. It may do so only after ensuring that the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age and after considering whether the foetal malformation leads to a substantial risk of the foetus being incompatible with life, or where the child (if it is born) may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Therefore, the outer temporal limit within which a pregnancy may be terminated is lifted in some cases. The design of the statute makes it evident that saving the life of the pregnant woman is of paramount importance, notwithstanding the length of the pregnancy. (Paras 19 and 18)

Sufiyan Syed - PA 9 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

In the present case, the length of the pregnancy has crossed twenty-four weeks. It is now approximately twenty-six weeks and five days. A medical termination of the pregnancy cannot be permitted for the following reasons: Having crossed the statutory limit of twenty-four weeks, the requirements in either of Section 3(2-B) or Section 5 must be met. There are no "substantial foetal abnormalities" diagnosed by a Medical Board in this case, in terms of Section 3(2-B). The Supreme Court called for a second medical report from AIIMS to ensure that the facts of the case were accurately placed before it and no foetal abnormality was detected. Lastly, neither of the two reports submitted by the Medical Boards indicates that a termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the petitioner, in terms of Section 5. (Para 28)

But this power to do complete justice may not be attracted in every case. In the present case pregnancy is of beyond 24 weeks. If a medical termination were to be conducted at this stage, the doctors would be faced with a viable foetus. One of the options before the Supreme Court, which the email from AIIMS has flagged, is for it to direct the doctors to stop the heart beat. The Supreme Court is averse to issuing a direction of this nature for the reasons recorded in the preceding paragraph. The petitioner, too, did not wish for the Supreme Court to issue such a direction. This was communicated by her to the Court during the course of the hearing. In the absence of a direction to stop the heart beat, the viable foetus would be faced with a significant risk of lifelong physical and mental disabilities. The reports submitted by the Medical Board speak for themselves. For these reasons, the prayer for the medical termination of the

Sufiyan Syed - PA 10 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

pregnancy cannot be accepted. (Paras 29 and 30)

14. In Paragraph No. 20, the position of law was

summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :

Length of the pregnancy Requirements for termination Up to twenty weeks Opinion of one RMP in terms of Section 3(2).

Between twenty and Opinion of two RMPs in terms twenty-four weeks of Section 3(2) read with Rule 3-B. Beyond twenty-four weeks If the termination is required to save the life of the pregnant woman, the opinion of one RMP in terms of Section 5.

If there are substantial foetal abnormalities, with the approval of the Medical Board in terms of Section 3(2-B) read with Rule 3-A(a)(i)

15. In Paragraph No. 26.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed that 'this is not an ordinary civil case. Rather, it is one

which concerns the viability of a medical termination of a

pregnancy and the course of action to be adopted by the doctors on

the basis of the development of the foetus'.

16. In the instant case, the victim was 17 Years and 10

Months old when she first came in physical contact with her friend

Sufiyan Syed - PA 11 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

in July, 2025 at his home and which was followed by her visit to his

home in August 2025. The fact remains that such relationship at the

said age was consensual, though legally impermissible. After she

noticed that there was a change in her menstrual cycle, she realized

of her pregnancy. Initially, she tried to avoid giving reasons to her

mother and finally spoke to her mother, who then lodged an FIR.

She is now an adult.

17. The foetus is, as per the unanimous opinion of the

Medical Board, 28 weeks of gestation. The Medical Board has

opined that there is a high chance of a live child being born if the

pregnancy is terminated through a preterm delivery. The Medical

Board has also opined that the foetus is without any congenital

abnormality or anomaly.

18. We are of the view, considering the verdict of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court (3 Judges Bench) in X5 (supra), that if a

forcible delivery is caused with the intention of terminating the

pregnancy, a live child would be born. As per the opinion of the

Board, the child would require aggressive medical treatment and

support, with the hope that, though born 12 weeks preterm, the child

Sufiyan Syed - PA 12 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

would develop normally and survive. This could lead to a mortality

or even a survival. The disadvantage of permitting such a forcible

delivery of a child which would otherwise grow normally up to the

40th week, will be that it will have to be brought into this world

prematurely and then treated aggressively with the hope that the live

child would survive. The other option is to perform foeticide. In X5

(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to follow the option of

foeticide.

19. If the child is to be born forcibly, preterm by 12 weeks,

it is for the doctors to express their opinion as to whether various

organs of the body, including the development of the brain, the

skull, the eyes, the bones, the skin and internal organs, etc. can be

nourished by medical treatment, to make them develop as they

would develop naturally in the mother's womb if the foetus is to be

kept for 40 weeks and subjected to a normal delivery. If the child is

to develop deformities by a pre-term delivery, no childless couple

would adopt such a baby. Per contra, if the child is allowed to be

born naturally, at least a well developed child would be born

naturally as it normally happens and would turn out to be a healthy

baby. A childless couple would always be encouraged to adopt a

Sufiyan Syed - PA 13 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

well developed orphan baby.

20. The victim who is an adult, can give birth to such a

child and thereafter hand over the child, after the normal feeding

period by a lactating mother, to an orphanage home so as to be put

for adoption. The child is just 12 weeks away from a natural

delivery. In such circumstances, this Court can direct a District

Child Welfare Committee to support the women in delivering the

child and after the medically advised period of feeding the child is

over, she can hand over the child to an orphanage home for

adoption.

21. The Child Welfare Committee can, not only assist the

would-be-mother in this process, but this Court can also direct the

nearest Government Medical facility to ensure that the would-be-

mother is taken care of, as like the physical care required for an

expecting mother. Such medical assistance including the assistance

of female Councilors and Psychiatrists, can also be directed and the

cost can be borne by the State.

22. In view of the above and keeping in focus the

Sufiyan Syed - PA 14 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

gestational age of the foetus and the view taken by the Supreme

Court in X5 (supra), we refuse permission for the medical

termination of the pregnancy, which would amount to foeticide if

granted.

23. Considering the aforesaid view, we leave it to the

parents of the would-be-mother, either to support her and help her

deliver the baby in their home or any other place of their choice or

through the assistance of a Child Welfare Committee, out of the two

Child Welfare Committees, namely, 1) Children of the Vishwa Balak

Centre, Plot No. 09/10, Sector 12, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra and

2) Janani Ashish Charitable Trust Plot No. 37 M.I.D.C., Gymkhana

Road, Omkar Nagar, Sagarli Gaon, Dombivli East, Dombivli,

Maharashtra, which are available near Thane. We direct both these

Child Welfare Committees to approach the Petitioner (mother of the

victim / would-be-mother) and make either of these two facilities

available for her. The would-be-mother would be taken care of until

her delivery and postpartum care. She can stay in the said facility

for as much time as she desires even after the delivery of the child.

The costs would be borne by the State.

Sufiyan Syed - PA 15 of 16

901.OS.WP(L).2388.2026.odt

24. All medical attention, including a female Psychologist /

Councilor would be provided to the would-be-mother. Needless to

state, after the child is born, and is in a condition to be given away

to a registered orphanage home for being put for adoption, the Child

Welfare Committee would assist the would-be-mother even in this

regard.

25. This Petition is accordingly disposed off with the above

directions.

26. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner, at this juncture

4.15 pm) submits that the would-be-mother be kept in Sir J. J.

Hospital since the Petitioner desires to challenge this order before

the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We permit such stay in the Sir. J. J.

Hospital and the State Government would bear the expenses for her

stay, medical attention and assistance.

27. This order is dictated in the open Court and concluded

at 4.15 p.m.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Sufiyan Syed - PA 16 of 16