Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53918
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
BINDU P. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO.27340 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adithya Rajeev, S. Parvathi
For the Respondents: R. Asalatha Varma, Asha Treesa Jose
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services cannot be denied to a couple solely on the ground that one of the spouses has exceeded the prescribed age limit.
Headnote:(A) Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) - Age Limit - Denial of services based solely on one spouse exceeding the prescribed age limit is impermissible. (Para 2)
Issues: Whether Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services could be denied to the petitioners merely for the reason that the husband has crossed the prescribed age limit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility for art services should not be restricted solely by the age of one spouse. (Para 1 , 2) |
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. POOJA SURENDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Adithya Rajeev, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Asalatha Varma R., learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and Smt.Asha Treesa Jose, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
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).
