1. Denial of Assisted Reproductive Technology services due to husband crossing prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65317
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Harisankar V. Menon, J
Shaija A – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34090 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S.
For the Respondents: Pooja Surendran
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akash S.
For the Respondents: Pooja Surendran
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. Petitioners argued ART services cannot be denied solely based on spousal age limit. (Para 2 )
3. Following precedent, ART benefits cannot be denied solely because one spouse exceeds the age limit. (Para 2 )
4. Assisted Reproductive Technology services cannot be denied solely because one spouse has crossed the prescribed age limit. (Para 2 )
5. Writ petition disposed of, petitioners entitled to benefit of the Division Bench precedent. (Para 2 )
6. Can Assisted Reproductive Technology services be denied solely because the husband has crossed the prescribed age limit?
No, ART services cannot be denied solely because one among the spouses has crossed the prescribed age limit, as held by a Division Bench. (Para 2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2026, 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).
