Allowed¶31

Ajay Madanrao Gaikwad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Bombay HC10 Jan 2025WP/54/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Medical termination of pregnancy; foetal abnormality; serious lower-limb handicap; pulmonary hypoplasia; USG findings; Medical Board opinion (changed/reconsidered); informed consent to surgical risk; termination at petitioners' risk; Endoworld Hospital Private Limited, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar; writ petition allowed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; WP 54/2025; neutral citation 2025:BHC-AUG:715-DB; decided 10-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Permission to petitioner No.2 to terminate her pregnancy within a day or two at the petitioners' own risk, the termination to be undertaken at Endoworld Hospital Private Limited, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. ¶31

Ajay Madanrao Gaikwad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner No.2 should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy in view of the Medical Board's opinion on the risk to the unborn child and to the mother.

¶13

Court's answer

In light of the expert opinion of the Medical Board, the writ petition is allowed and petitioner No.2 is permitted to undergo termination of pregnancy within a day or two, at the risk of the petitioners.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that the child would in all probability be born with serious handicap of the lower limb, with the potential of seriously affecting the mental condition of petitioner No.2 (would-be mother).

¶31

Key takeaways

On the request of the petitioners' advocate, the process of termination of pregnancy is permitted to be undertaken at Endoworld Hospital Private Limited, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Mangesh S. Patil & Prafulla S. Khubalkar, JJ.), by a common ('Per Court') order dated 10th January, 2025, allowed Writ Petition No. 54 of 2025 (Ajay Madanrao Gaikwad and another v. State of Maharashtra) and permitted petitioner No.2 to terminate her pregnancy. The Medical Board, which earlier was not agreeable to termination, on reconsideration at the Court's direction (on a fresh Radiologist's report) opined that although the condition was not life-threatening, there was substantial risk of physical and mental handicap to the baby if born, with USG suggesting possible pulmonary hypoplasia; the patient and relatives consented to the surgical risks. Finding that the child would in all probability be born with serious lower-limb handicap capable of seriously affecting petitioner No.2's mental condition, the Court permitted termination within a day or two at the petitioners' risk, to be performed at Endoworld Hospital Private Limited, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:715-DB

¶2

1 926wp54o25 2nd session

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 54 OF 2025

¶5

AJAY MADANRAO GAIKWAD AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶7

Shri Rahul G. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri M.K. Goyanka, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.

¶8

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

¶9

PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 10^th January, 2025

¶11

Per Court :-

¶12

Pursuant to the minutes recorded in the first session,

¶13

the learned AGP tenders across the bar a report of the Medical Board opining that petitioner No.2 can be allowed to terminate pregnancy.

¶14

The learned advocate for the petitioners submits, on instructions, that the petitioners are ready to run the risk of consequences of permitting termination of pregnancy at this stage.

¶15

In the light of the fact that earlier the Medical Board

¶16

2 926wp54o25 2nd session

¶17

was not agreeable with termination of pregnancy, petitioner No.2

¶18

once again had approached the Radiologist and with the report, had again insisted for permission to terminate pregnancy. We had directed the Medical Board to once again opine on the basis of the report of the Radiologist furnished by the petitioners today.

¶19

Pursuant to such directions, the Medical Board tenders its opinion, which reads as under:-

¶20

“Opinion by Medical Board for termination of pregnancy:

¶21

a) Allowed

¶22

b) Denied

¶23

Justification for the decision:-

¶24

Although the above mentioned condition is not life threatening, there is substantial risk of physical & mental handicap to the baby if born. In addition above USG findings suggest possibility of pulmonary hypoplasia. Hence MTP advised.

¶25

Physical fitness of the woman for the termination of pregnancy:-

¶26

MTP may be done with due risk. Need of a surgical intervention and possibility of blood transfusion, and possibility of other unforeseen risks explained to patient and relatives. They have consented to take all the possible risks.”

¶27

We have heard both the sides and considered the

¶28

opinion, rather changed opinion of the Medical Board and the

¶29

reasons assigned by it (supra). Since the child in all probability

¶30

3 926wp54o25 2nd session

¶31

would be born with serious handicap of lower limb and it would have potential of seriously affecting the mental condition of petitioner No.2 (would be mother), in the light of the opinion being expressed by the experts, we allow the Writ Petition and permit the termination of pregnancy to take place within a day or two at the risk of the petitioners.

¶32

As per the request of the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners, the process of termination of pregnancy is permitted to be undertaken at Endoworld Hospital Private Limited, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.

¶33

Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶34

kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )

Ajay Madanrao Gaikwad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Madanrao Gaikwad and Another v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuman Ishat E Taleem Society and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Another

Bansi Kachruba Sakharwad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Ashok Narayan Sudewad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Subhash Uddhavrao Wayal Vs Kai. Yamunabai Patil Shikshan Krida Va Sanskrutik Vidyalay and Others

Pandurang Tukaram Ghule Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Manisha Marotrao Methewad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others