Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that a 17-year-old pregnant girl, who had been residing with a man booked under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, be shifted to a State-run shelter home, observing that being a minor, she cannot legally cohabit with the accused. At the same time, the Court declined to authorise termination of her pregnancy, noting her express unwillingness to undergo an abortion.
The Court issued the directions in a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of a letter from the Special Judge (POCSO), who had sought permission for termination of the minor girl’s pregnancy. At the time of the proceedings, the girl was reportedly 26 weeks and 4 days pregnant. Considering the advanced stage of pregnancy, the Court directed the Superintendent of Nari Niketan to ensure that all necessary care and precautions are taken.
Justice Vishal Mishra observed, while refusing to allow her continued residence with the accused, “The prosecutrix is aged about 17 years and being a minor she cannot reside in the house of the accused. Therefore, the Police Authorities are directed to hand over the prosecutrix to her parents and if they are not willing to keep the prosecutrix with them or the prosecutrix show her willingness not to reside with the parents, then she should be shifted to Nari Niketan (Mauganj/ Rewa) under intimation to the Superintendent of Police, District Mauganj. The Superintendent of Nari Niketan is directed to take all care and precaution with respect to the victim/ prosecutrix as she is having pregnancy of 26 weeks & 4 days as per earlier medical report. The prosecutrix shall stay at Nari Niketan till she attains the age of majority."
The State had earlier been directed to ensure medical examination of the girl. However, according to the records produced before the Court, the girl refused to undergo further medical tests or termination of pregnancy. In her Hindi statement, she said she had been in a consensual relationship with the accused for the past year, is currently residing with him, and does not wish to undergo a physical examination or abort the pregnancy.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the High Court reiterated that “Where the opinion of a minor pregnant person differs from the guardian, the court must regard the view of the pregnant person as an important factor while deciding the termination of the pregnancy.”
Consequently, the High Court concluded, “In view of the fact that prosecutrix has not given any consent for undergoing termination of pregnancy and taking note of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another… the termination of pregnancy in the present case cannot be ordered.”
Finally, the Court disposed of the suo motu writ petition with the above directions and observations, upholding the prosecutrix’s decisional autonomy while simultaneously ensuring statutory protection appropriate to her age and legal status.
Case Title: X Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 27514 of 2025
Coram: Justice Vishal Mishra
Advocate for Respondent: Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri
Picture Source :
