Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Minimole Jacob – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 3422 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S., Soniya S., Girish Kumar M S, Richu Theresa Robert
For the Respondents: Bonny Baby, Vinay.V
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services cannot be denied to a couple solely on the grounds that one of the spouses has exceeded the prescribed age limit.
Headnote:The case involves the denial of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services based on the husband exceeding the prescribed age limit. The court examined the eligibility criteria for ART services and the impact of age restrictions on couples seeking such medical assistance. The primary issue was whether ART services could be denied to petitioners merely because the husband had crossed the prescribed age limit. Relying on previous judicial precedent, the court reasoned that benefits of ART services cannot be denied solely on the ground that one spouse exceeds the age limit. Therefore, this writ petition 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).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for art services should not be restricted based solely on one spouse exceeding the age limit. (Para 1 , 2) |
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
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 by 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, this writ petition 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).
