Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 34340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Sabitha N. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) 18005/2026|WP(C) 18477/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S.
For the Respondents: Harikrishnan P.B., Sanjana R. Nair, N.B. Sunil Nath
Assisted Reproductive Technology services cannot be denied to a couple solely on the ground that one of the spouses has exceeded the maximum age limit prescribed by law, provided the other spouse fulfills the relevant eligibility criteria.
Headnote:The proceedings concern writ petitions filed by couples seeking access to Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services, which were initially restricted due to age criteria stipulated for the husband. The central issue pertains to whether satisfying age requirements for only one spouse is sufficient to access services. The court addressed the question of whether the age limitation for ART services is an absolute barrier when one spouse exceeds it but the other remains within the eligibility criteria. The court followed the ratio of a Division Bench decision, holding that the benefit of ART services should not be denied solely because one spouse has crossed the prescribed age limit. The court disposed of the writ petitions in favour of the petitioners, allowing them to access the services by applying the principles established in the referred precedent.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicability of art age eligibility criteria where only one spouse satisfies the limit. (Para 1 , 2) |
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3.
2. The issue arising for consideration is as to whether the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services could be denied to the petitioners merely for the reason that the husband has crossed the prescribed age limit. The afore issue has been considered a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Devayani S. [2025 KHC OnLine 2473], wherein it was held that the benefit of ART services cannot be denied solely for the reason that one among the spouses has crossed the prescribed age limit.
Therefore, these writ petitions would stand disposed of, holding that the petitioners would also be entitled for the benefit of the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Devayani S. (supra)
