Introduction:
The Bombay High Court, on January 8, 2025, deliberated on a petition filed by a sexagenarian couple seeking to terminate their 27-year-old adopted daughter’s 21-week pregnancy, citing her “mental illness” and lack of capability to parent. The division bench comprising Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil examined the medical board’s findings, which stated that the woman had an IQ of 75, indicating below-average intelligence, but did not classify her as mentally ill or unfit for motherhood. The case raised significant questions about the rights of individuals with below-average intelligence to bear children and the responsibilities of parents toward adult offspring.
Arguments of Both Sides:
During the hearing, the petitioners argued that their daughter’s mental state made her incapable of caring for a child, justifying the termination of her pregnancy. The counsel for the parents highlighted her diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder and contended that her behavior was often uncontrollable, citing instances of her leaving the house late at night and returning the next morning. They further submitted that their daughter lacked the capacity to make informed decisions about her pregnancy or future.
On the contrary, the medical board’s report established that both the woman and the fetus were medically fit to continue the pregnancy or undergo an abortion. The woman herself expressed a desire to marry the man she identified as the father of the child, stating that she loved him and opposed the termination of her pregnancy. Despite this, her parents had not contacted the man in question to verify his willingness to marry their daughter.
Judgement:
Justice Ghuge criticized the parents for failing to support their daughter emotionally and for neglecting their responsibility to initiate a conversation with the man she named. The bench emphasized that the woman’s IQ, while below average, did not negate her right to be a mother. The court observed that intelligence levels vary across individuals and cannot alone determine a person’s eligibility for parenthood. Furthermore, the judges underscored the importance of respecting the autonomy of the woman, who, at 27 years old, is an adult capable of making personal choices.
The court adjourned the hearing to January 16, directing the parents to contact the man identified by their daughter to ascertain whether he was willing to marry her. The bench urged the parents to approach the matter with sensitivity, ensuring that their daughter felt supported rather than isolated. The court’s remarks extended to the larger issue of societal attitudes toward individuals with below-average intelligence, asserting that their rights, including the right to parent, must be upheld unless there is conclusive evidence of incapacity or harm.
In its previous hearing, the court had taken a strong stance against the parents’ treatment of their adopted daughter, dismissing claims that she was “stubborn and violent” as an excuse for inadequate care and affection. The judges highlighted that as adoptive parents, they bore the responsibility of providing unconditional love and support, irrespective of her behavioral challenges.
The case remains ongoing, with the court awaiting further developments regarding the parents’ efforts to engage with the man named by their daughter. However, the hearing has already set a significant precedent in recognizing the reproductive rights and autonomy of individuals with below-average intelligence, while holding parents accountable for their duties.