Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Fareeda S V – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 16907 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash Sathyanandanan S.
For the Respondents: S.Vaidyanathan, Sylaja S.L.
In the context of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) services, the age limit is applicable to the wife, and the age of the husband does not serve as a disqualifying factor when donor gametes are used for treatment.
Headnote:The petitioners challenged the denial of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services by the respondent hospital, citing the age criteria applied to the husband. The Court considered whether the age limit prescribed for ART applies to both spouses or only the wife when donor gametes are utilized. The Court evaluated the issue in light of existing judicial precedent, specifically referencing the ruling in Union of India v. Devayani S. [2025 KHC OnLine 2473]. The ratio decidendi established that the age of the husband is not a disqualifying factor for ART services if the wife satisfies the age requirement and donor gametes are employed in the treatment. The writ petition was disposed of, with the Court directing the extension of ART services to the petitioners in accordance with the cited precedent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court jurisdiction and parties' grievance regarding denial of art treatment services. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. application of established precedent regarding spousal age limits in art treatments. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Akash Sathyanandanan S., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Sylaja S.L, the learned Government Pleader, as well as the Assistant Solicitor General of India.
2. The petitioners have approached this seeking an appropriate direction to the 4th respondent hospital to provide ART services, which, according to the petitioners, is denied to them merely for the reason that the wife alone is within the permissible age limit.
3. The afore issue has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Devayani S. [2025 KHC OnLine 2473], holding that the age of the husband need not be considered, and if the wife is within the age limit, and the donor gametes are being used in the treatment provided, ART services could be extended.
4. In view of the afore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief.
Therefore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, holding that the petitioners are also to be extended the benefits, pursuant to the judgment at Devayani S. (supra).
