1. Denial of Assisted Reproductive Technology services due to husband crossing prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 62279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Bindu P – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S.
For the Respondents: Mohammed Shafi.K
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S.
For the Respondents: Mohammed Shafi.K
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services cannot be denied to a couple solely on the basis that one of the spouses has exceeded the prescribed age limit.
Headnote:(A) Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) - Eligibility - Age Limit - Denial of services solely on the ground that one spouse has exceeded the prescribed age limit is impermissible. (Para 2)
Issues: 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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Benefit of ART services cannot be denied solely because one spouse crossed prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
3. Assisted Reproductive Technology services cannot be denied solely because one spouse has crossed the prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
4. Writ petition disposed of holding petitioners entitled to benefit of the principles laid down in precedent. (Para 2 )
5. Can Assisted Reproductive Technology services be denied solely because one spouse has crossed the prescribed age limit?
No. The benefit of ART services cannot be denied solely for the reason that one among the spouses has crossed the prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the 1st respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 3. In the nature of the orders being issued, notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed with.
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).
