Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 36854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Vishal Mishra, J
Babitha A Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 1233 of 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Family Law and Medical Jurisprudence
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, a married couple, sought to conceive a child through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART/IVF) following the tragic death of their only child. Their request was denied by the medical authorities citing the age restriction provided under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The petitioners, aged 52 and 50 respectively, approached the High Court challenging this refusal.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that medical opinion confirmed the female petitioner could be planned for surrogacy or IVF with oocyte donation. Citing previous decisions of this Court and others, the Court directed that the application should not be rejected due to the age barrier, provided the couple accepts the risks involved.
Issues: Whether the age restriction stipulated under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, acts as an absolute bar for couples seeking medical intervention for parenthood.
Ratio Decidendi: Age barriers identified in statutory provisions for ART should be relaxed in cases where the couple is medically fit and willing to accept the personal risks of the procedure, as rigid enforcement created potential constitutional imbalances.
Result: Petition disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to proceed with the treatment.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prakash Upadhyay, Parth Pandey
For the Respondents: Aakash Malpani
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the grievance regarding age-based denial of ivf services. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal precedents for relaxing age barriers in ivf treatments. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. assessment of medical fitness as a primary factor over age. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. conditional permission for ivf subject to personal medical risk. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
The present petition is filed being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no. 2 in not processing their case for having child through IVF on the ground that the petitioner no.1 is more than 50 years of age and the petitioner no. 2 is 50 years of age, therefore, respondent no. 2 denied to process the IVF procedure due to the age restriction provided under Section 21 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is married to the Petitioner No. 2 and from their marriage a child named “Alen Singh” was born and the family was leading a peaceful life, however due to Organ failure and Jaundice, the only child of the Petitioners herein died at the age of 21 years on 19.10.2025. After the death of their only child, the petitioners are left with no child and because of their ae, they are unfit to conceive naturally due to the age.
3. It is argued that the joy of parenthood is available to them and cannot be snatched away by barriers of law and every attempt to secure, should be made by the married couple. Therefore, with an intention to have a child further, they approached the respondent no. 2 Hospital to get appropriate medical treatment to have child through Assisted Reproductive Technology (In Vitro Fertilization). The respondent Hospital also performed the medical test on the petitioner no.1 and she was found to be medically fit to bear a child. But as the petitioner no. 1 was more than 50 years of age and the petitioner no. 2 was 50 years of age, the respondent no. 2 Hospital refused to proceed further with the procedure / treatment as Section 22 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 provides age limit of 50 years for female and 55 years for male to perform the ART (IVF) procedure as the upper age limited. Therefore, the procedure could not be performed.
4. It is argued that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in the case of Sajitha Abdul Nazar vs. Union of India (2025) and in the case of Union of India vs. Devayani S and others in WA No. 2009 of 2025, Calcutta High Court in Shyamoli Saha and another vs. State of West Bengal and others in WPA No. 23776 of 2024. Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh High Court in Sarbjit Kaur and another vs. State of Punjab and others in CWP No. 6818/2025, in the case of Veena Kumar alias Avinash Kaur Dhillon and another vs. Union of India and others in CWP No.24686 of 2025 (O & M), Dr. Pushpa and another vs. Union of India and others in CWP No.13085 of 2026 (O&M) as well as this Court in the case of Rajesh Singh and another vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another in WP No.17036 of 2023 dated 26.7.2023 and Kajal Jwala and another vs. State of MP and another in WP No.30477/2023 dated 20.12.2023 and relief was granted to the aggrieved petitioners therein.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that age barriers can be relaxed by the Courts. The Courts while relaxing the age barriers have made an observation that applying the age limit to undergo the treatment would create an unconstitutional distinction where a single woman below fifty years may avail ART but a married woman of the same age would be disqualified merely because her husband is older.
6. Petitioner no.1 was found to be medically fit by the respondent no. 2 Hospital to have a child, therefore, IVF, therefore, this Court in the case of Kajal Jwala (supra) has also considered the same and recorded the consensus of the parties that if they are ready to face the consequences and in case, the operation resulted in failure, then they wo
