JUDGMENT : S. Manu, J. Petitioners are husband and wife. Second petitioner is currently pregnant with a gestational age of nearly 34 weeks. She underwent growth scanning at Mediclinic Hospital, Abu Dabhi in her 32 week of pregnancy. The foetus was diagnosed with severe bilateral ventriculomegaly, a grave neurological condition characterized by excessive enlargement of lateral ventricles of the brain. The Specialist she consulted at Abu Dhabi advised her to terminate the pregnancy. She reached Kerala on the same day and underwent an indepth 5D scan on 16.4.2025. A doubt expressed by Mediclinic, Abu Dhabi about hydrocephalus was confirmed in the scanning report dated 16.4.2025. Thereafter, the petitioners approached RELA Institute of Medical Sciences, Chennai on 18.4.2025. The 2 nd petitioner was subjected to B-mode ultrasonography of the gravid uterus as well as Extended Neurosonogram which confirmed the said diagnosis of Hydrocephalus. The report indicated bilateral severe ventriculomegaly with thickened and ecogenic walls, dilated third and fourth ventricles, 3x1.3 cm inner hemispheric cyst, mild cardiomegaly, poor cardiac contractility and dilated left ventricle and ventricular wall hypertrophy and also oligohydramnios. Petitioners were advised to terminate pregnancy by the RELA Institute of Medical Sciences, Chennai. 2. In view of the medical opinions of the experts, the petitioners arrived at a conclusion that termination of pregnancy is to be resorted to. They have approached this Court since the gestation period has exceeded 24 weeks. On 22.4.2025, an interim order was passed directing the additional 6 th respondent to constitute a Medical Board to examine the condition of the fetus and of the 2 nd petitioner and to furnish opinion. The Professor and HOD, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, SAT Hospital, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram constituted a Medical Board with 11 members which examined the case. The learned Government Pleader has handed over a copy of the opinion of the Medical Board. Final opinion of the Medical Board is extracted hereunder:- “Baby is at 34 weeks with severe ventriculomegaly detected at 32 weeks of pregnancy. Couple are requesting the feasibility of termination of pregnancy at the gestational age of 34 weeks. The experts opined that the hydrocephalus is likely to result in a baby who is mentally and physically compromised. However, it is not a lethal anomaly and termination can result in survival of the baby in more than 95% cases. Couple are requesting the feasibility of termination of pregnancy at the gestational age of 34 weeks. The experts opined that the hydrocephalus is likely to result in a baby who is mentally and physically compromised. However, it is not a lethal anomaly and termination can result in survival of the baby in more than 95% cases. Baby will require postnatal NICU care and surgical treatment options like ventriculo-peritoneal shunts are available for the baby. Intervention at this gestational age can produce increased risk of LSCS also. Hence, the couple is counseled in this regard and if they still wishes to terminate the pregnancy, it may be allowed taking the risk of prematurity and postnatal care of baby.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the petitioners are ready to accept the risk pointed out as above by the Medical Board. 4. It is clear from the materials brought on record that the apprehension of the petitioners is genuine and the desire to terminate pregnancy is on the basis of their conviction that the fetus suffers from serious issues which would ultimately result only in sufferings. Submission of the petitioners that continuation of pregnancy under these circumstances would lead to grave mental agony and trauma cannot be ignored. Petitioners have relied on judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.477/2025. 5. It is well settled that in appropriate cases the Court can direct termination of pregnancy even beyond the period of 24 weeks specified under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act , 1971. In several cases this Court had granted permission to terminate pregnancy when the Medical Board reported substantial fetal abnormalities. This writ petition is therefore allowed with the following directions:- (i) The 2 nd petitioner is permitted to get her pregnancy terminated. (ii) On production of this order, the the hospital concerned shall take immediate measures to constitute a medical team for conducting the procedure. (iii) The 2 nd petitioner shall file an appropriate undertaking, authorising the Doctors to conduct the appropriate procedure at her risk. (iv) If the baby is alive at birth, the petitioners and the hospital shall ensure that the baby is offered the best medical treatment available.