Her Body, Her Choice, but Also Her Burden: The Missing Male Financial Accountability in India’s Abortion Law

I. Introduction

India’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 (amended in 2021), affirms a woman’s right to choose abortion, centering reproductive autonomy in line with constitutional values of privacy and dignity (Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017). However, while empowering in principle, the law remains silent on an important aspect i.e. the financial burden of terminating a pregnancy. In cases of consensual conception, there is no legal mechanism compelling male partners to share the cost of abortion. This article highlights this legislative gap and argues for the need to recognize male financial responsibility as a matter of equity and justice.

II. Legal Framework on Abortion in India

The MTP Act permits termination up to 20 weeks, and in special cases up to 24 weeks, without requiring the consent of the male partner. This ensures a woman’s bodily autonomy, as reaffirmed in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009). However, by not addressing the financial implications, the law inadvertently assumes that reproductive responsibility lies solely with the woman, both in terms of rights and costs.

III. Gendered Economic Burden

Abortions, especially in private healthcare settings, can be expensive. Costs include consultation, medication, diagnostic tests, travel, and post-procedure care. For women from lower socio-economic backgrounds or those abandoned by partners, these expenses are overwhelming. Since male partners are not legally obliged to contribute, women often shoulder this burden alone. This reinforces patriarchal norms, implying that consequences of reproduction (even when consensual) are exclusively a woman’s responsibility.

IV. Comparative Perspective

Globally, some jurisdictions provide better balance. In the United States, even before birth, child support laws may apply in some contexts. Germany and Sweden recognize state and partner support for reproductive healthcare. While these models differ in their approach, they highlight the possibility of integrating male accountability without infringing on a woman’s right to choose.

V. Legal Gaps in India

Currently, no Indian law, whether the MTP Act, Indian Penal Code, or personal/family laws mandates any financial duty on the male partner during pregnancy termination. Even civil remedies are unclear. In cases where a woman is persuaded or misled into abortion and then left unsupported, there is no actionable recourse. This legal vacuum undermines fairness and allows men to evade consequences, despite being equally involved in conception.

VI. Ethical and Policy Concerns

Introducing male accountability raises ethical questions. Critics argue that since abortion is the woman’s sole decision, financial obligation shouldn’t be imposed on the man. However, this argument ignores the shared responsibility of conception. Supporting costs doesn’t interfere with a woman’s autonomy, it simply recognizes the male partner’s contributory role. Caution is needed to avoid misuse or infringement of privacy, especially in abusive or coercive relationships. Any reform must uphold the woman’s right to exclude the male partner from the decision-making process.

VII. The Way Forward

India needs a balanced framework that:

1. Introduces civil remedies for women to seek partial cost-sharing in consensual pregnancies.

2. Allows courts to interpret existing civil laws to recognize such financial duties.

3. Establishes state support schemes for vulnerable women, with recovery options from the male partner.

4. Protects privacy, ensuring male accountability doesn’t compromise a woman’s right to choose or her safety.

VIII. Conclusion

While the MTP Act upholds a woman’s autonomy, it falls short in ensuring equitable reproductive responsibility. The current legal silence isolates women financially and reinforces gendered burdens. If reproductive rights are to be meaningful, they must be accompanied by corresponding duties — including from male partners. Legal reform is needed to bridge this gap, ensuring justice not just in principle, but in practice.

References:

·       The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021)

·       The Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21

·       Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 Recognized privacy as a fundamental right including bodily and reproductive autonomy.

·       Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 Affirmed a woman’s right to make reproductive choices as a part of personal liberty.

·       Child Support Enforcement Act, U.S. (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act)

·       India Today, “Bombay HC discusses male partner’s role in MTP cases,” October 2024 https://www.indiatoday.in/india/law-news/story/bombay-high-court-male-partners-role-in-medical-termination-of-pregnancy-act-cases-mtp-2611842-2024-10-05

This article is authored by Tisha R. Thakkar, who was among the Top 40 performers in the Civil Procedural Law Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.