Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B.SNEHALATHA, J
CHANDRAN B – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. clinic refuses art due to wife's age exceedance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. husband's eligibility independent of wife's age. (Para 3 , 4 , 8) |
| 3. art act defines individual age limits. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. prior judgments affirm single eligibility principle. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. permit art for husband with consent. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Petitioners-a married couple have approached this Court with a grievance that 4th respondent hospital is refusing to provide assistant reproductive technology to them on the ground that 2nd petitioner wife has crossed the age limit prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (in short ‘ART Act’).
2. According to the petitioners, 1st petitioner who is the husband is aged 54 and 2nd petitioner wife is aged 50. They are issueless. 2nd petitioner has undergone In Vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures at the 4th respondent hospital. Although the doctors have advised the 2nd petitioner to undergo another IVF procedure, the hospital has declined the procedure for the reason that the 2nd petitioner has surpassed the age of 50 years as stipulated under Section 21(g)(i) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
