Does below-average intelligence mean no right to motherhood, asks Bombay HC

The court has acknowledged the woman's autonomy and her right to make life choices, including her decision to carry the pregnancy to term

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday slammed a 66-year-old man for seeking to terminate the pregnancy of his 27-year-old adoptive daughter, who has below-average intelligence, reported Bar and Bench.

 

The woman, who is over 20 weeks pregnant, has refused to consent to the abortion. A medical board examining the case found both her and the foetus to be physically normal. Despite her borderline intellectual functioning, the court emphasised that she has not been legally declared mentally ill or incapable of making decisions.

 

“Observation is she has below-average intelligence. Nobody can be super intelligent… We are human beings; everybody has different levels of intelligence. Because she has below-average intelligence, does she have no right to be a mother?” questioned the High Court bench comprising Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Rajesh S Patil.

 

Father cites mental health, financial concerns 

The petitioner, who adopted the woman in 1998 when she was six months old, alleged that she suffers from multiple mental health issues, including borderline personality disorders and depression. He said, she is violent, requires constant medication, and has been sexually active since her teenage years, often leaving the house at night without informing him.

 

According to his plea, he only became aware of her pregnancy during a routine medical check-up on November 26. He cited his advanced age and financial difficulties as reasons why he could not support the unborn child.

 

Court rejects abortion argument 

During a previous hearing, the court referred the woman for a medical examination. On Wednesday, it was informed that both the woman and the foetus are healthy, and while a pregnancy termination could still be performed, the woman expressed her wish to continue with the pregnancy. She has also identified her partner and expressed her desire to marry him.

 

The court encouraged the woman’s parents to explore the possibility of her marriage. “Can parents take the initiative and talk to this man? What you have said is that she wants to marry the man. It is not an offence. She is 27 years old. She should feel comfortable, not terrorised,” the court said.

 

Parenthood is a duty, not an option 

In response to the father’s plea, the court made it clear that advancing age or financial strain does not absolve him of his parental responsibilities. “Parents must do their duty. You adopted her when she was just five months old… Now that she has grown with you, you cannot refuse to take care of the child,” the bench remarked.

 

The court also acknowledged the woman’s autonomy and her right to make life choices, including her decision to carry the pregnancy to term. The court has granted time for the parents to assess whether the man identified by the woman is willing to marry her. The case will be heard again on January 13.