The Bombay High Court on Wednesday instructed a father to determine whether his daughter’s partner would be willing to marry her before it would pass an order on his petition for the medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) of her foetus.

The 66-year-old father had sought the termination of the pregnancy for his 27-year-old adoptive daughter, who is over 20 weeks pregnant and has refused to consent to the abortion.

Earlier in the case, a bench of Justices RV Ghuge and RS Patil had ordered that the woman be examined by a medical board. On Wednesday, Additional Public Prosecutor Prachi Tatake presented the report to the court.

After reviewing the report, the bench noted that both the mother and foetus were healthy. The report also mentioned that the woman had “borderline intellectual function.” The bench raised concerns, asking, “Does borderline intellectual function mean mental disorder? There is a procedure to declare a person mentally ill and then a guardian has to be appointed. Here no such procedure has been undertaken. She is not declared a mentally ill person.”

The judges further asked, “Because she has below-average intelligence, she has no right to be a mother?”

During the proceedings, advocate SK Dubey, representing the father, informed the court that after filing the petition, the woman had revealed her partner’s name and expressed a desire to marry him. The court then instructed the parents to see whether the marriage could take place.

The bench remarked, “Can parents take 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 petitioner, who adopted the woman in 1998 when she was a few months old, had argued that she suffered from several mental health issues, including borderline personality disorder and depression. He also claimed that she was violent and required constant medication. The father further alleged that she had been sexually active since the age of 13 or 14 and often went out at night without informing him.

The father stated that he learnt of his daughter’s pregnancy on November 26 during a routine check-up and cited financial concerns and his old age as reasons for being unable to support the child.

In response, the bench commented, “Parents must do their duty. You adopted her when she was five months old. Now you know that the child has grown with you.”

The court will hear the case again on January 13.