The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that a woman cannot be denied assisted reproductive treatment solely because her spouse has crossed the statutory age threshold, provided she independently satisfies the legal age criteria.
Setting aside an order that had rejected an application by a couple married for 22 years, Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad directed regulatory authorities and an assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic to permit the couple to undergo in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures, subject to medical clearance and statutory safeguards.
Statutory Age Rules And Reproductive Autonomy
The ruling centered on Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, which lays down age parameters for individuals accessing fertility services. The court observed that the statute contains no explicit provision stating that one partner exceeding the prescribed age automatically disqualifies the other eligible spouse from receiving treatment.
Justice Prasad noted that reading the husband’s age as an absolute bar to his wife’s treatment would effectively insert a composite age restriction into the law that Parliament did not mandate. The bench stressed that such a restrictive interpretation substantially undermines the woman’s reproductive choices, which are protected as an integral part of the right to personal liberty and life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court further noted that a rigid, mechanical application of statutory age caps must not lead to an unintended and disproportionate denial of parenthood when the procedure is medically feasible and one spouse satisfies the legal eligibility standards.
Decades-Long Effort To Conceive
The petitioners, who have been married for approximately 22 years without any surviving children, had previously attempted fertility treatment in 2013. The wife conceived in 2015, but the pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage at roughly four months.
The couple subsequently approached an ART clinic to pursue IVF. Following clinical examinations and counselling, medical professionals determined they were fit for the procedure. However, authorities rejected their application because the husband, aged 57, had surpassed the statutory upper age ceiling specified for men under the ART Act.
Challenging the rejection, the couple approached the High Court. The bench observed that the 57-year-old husband was not seeking treatment eligibility for himself contrary to the statute, but was participating and consenting to his wife undergoing the procedure in accordance with statutory and medical rules.
Reflecting on the pursuit of family life, the court remarked that where physical capability and personal willingness endure, the aspiration for parenthood cannot simply be dismissed as an ambition that has outlived its time.
Directives And Treatment Safeguards
Directing immediate relief, the High Court quashed the rejection order and cleared the couple to resume their IVF process, provided the wife meets all requisite medical criteria and the clinic adheres to established ethical, legal, and regulatory standards.
The bench also addressed potential procedural delays, ordering that if the wife reaches the statutory upper limit of 50 years during an ongoing treatment cycle initiated under this ruling, turning 50 will not by itself require the termination of her treatment, subject to medical advisability and prevailing statutory rules.
