Currently Empty: ₹0.00
Can a Couple Be Denied IVF Because One Spouse Has Crossed the Age Limit?
Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) has created new possibilities for people seeking to become parents. At the same time, the use of such technology is regulated by law to ensure that treatment is safe, ethical and properly supervised.
A particularly important question arises when one spouse falls within the statutory age limit while the other spouse has crossed it. Should the entire couple then be denied access to IVF?
The Gujarat High Court considered this question in Sumitra ben Shailesh kumar Patel & Anr. v. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon and the Appropriate Authority & Ors. on 2 September 2026. The Court examined Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and interpreted the age restrictions applicable to men and women in the context of a “commissioning couple.”
1. Case Snapshot
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Court | Gujarat High Court |
| Case | Sumitraben Shaileshkumar Patel & Anr. v. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgeon and the Appropriate Authority & Ors. |
| Date | 2 September 2026 |
| Judge | Justice Nirzar S. Desai |
| Subject | IVF eligibility and statutory age limits under the ART Act |
| Key Provision | Section 21(g), Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 |
| Core Issue | Whether a commissioning couple can be denied ART services merely because one spouse has crossed the applicable age limit while the other remains within the prescribed limit |
| Outcome | Petition allowed; the couple was permitted to approach an authorised institution for ART/IVF services |
| Important Principle | The age restrictions under Section 21(g) operate individually and do not automatically disqualify a commissioning couple when only one spouse is over the prescribed age |
2. Background and Facts
The petitioners were a married couple who wished to have another child through In Vitro Fertilization (IVF).
The wife had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for women under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. At the same time, the husband was 54 years old, which placed him within the statutory upper age limit applicable to men.
The couple approached a medical practitioner for IVF treatment. However, treatment was refused because the wife had crossed the age of 50.
Consequently, the couple made a representation to the concerned authorities seeking permission to undergo ART services. Their request was rejected, and the matter was eventually brought before the Gujarat High Court.
Thus, the central dispute was not whether the couple could medically undergo IVF. Instead, the immediate legal question was how the statutory age restrictions should be applied to a married couple seeking ART services.
3. Legal Issues Before the Court
The Court was required to consider the following questions:
- How should Section 21(g) of the ART Act be interpreted in relation to a commissioning couple?
- Do the age limits for men and women operate independently, or must both spouses satisfy their respective age requirements?
- Can a commissioning couple be denied ART services merely because one spouse has crossed the applicable statutory age limit?
- How should Section 21(g) be read together with the definition of “commissioning couple” under Section 2(e)?
4. Relevant Legal Provisions and Concepts
Section 2(e): Commissioning Couple
Section 2(e) of the ART Act defines a “commissioning couple” as an infertile married couple who approach an ART clinic or ART bank to obtain authorised ART services.
This definition became important because the Act separately refers to women and men while also recognising a married couple as a distinct category.
Therefore, the Court had to examine whether the age restrictions applicable to an individual should automatically be treated as a combined restriction applicable to the couple.
Section 21(g): Age Restrictions for ART Services
Section 21(g) prescribes age-related restrictions for ART services.
Under the provision, ART services cannot ordinarily be provided to:
- a woman below 21 years or above 50 years; or
- a man below 21 years or above 55 years.
The important question, however, was whether these individual age limits created a single combined age restriction for a commissioning couple.
The Gujarat High Court answered this question by examining the statutory scheme and the earlier judicial interpretation of the provision.
5. What Was the Court’s Interpretation?
The Court adopted an interpretation under which the age limits under Section 21(g) operate with reference to the individual spouses.
Accordingly, the fact that one spouse has crossed the applicable age limit does not automatically mean that the other spouse, who remains within the prescribed age, is also disqualified.
The Court relied upon the reasoning adopted in earlier cases, particularly Sanchita Ghosh v. Union of India, where the Calcutta High Court had similarly examined the relationship between Section 2(e) and Section 21(g).
As a result, the Court concluded that a commissioning couple should not be denied ART services unless both spouses are independently disqualified on the basis of the statutory age restrictions.
6. Court’s Reasoning
First, the Act separately prescribes age limits for men and women
Section 21(g) does not prescribe one combined age limit for a married couple.
Instead, separate limits have been provided for women and men. Therefore, the statutory language had to be examined individually rather than by creating an additional restriction that was not expressly provided.
Second, “commissioning couple” is separately recognised
The Court considered the definition of a commissioning couple under Section 2(e).
When the definition is read together with Section 21(g), the provisions can be interpreted harmoniously. This prevents an age-related restriction applicable to one individual from automatically becoming a complete prohibition against the couple.
Third, the purpose of the ART Act must also be considered
The ART Act regulates assisted reproductive technology and seeks to ensure safe and ethical treatment while addressing reproductive-health concerns.
Therefore, the Court preferred an interpretation that gave meaningful effect to the statutory framework without creating an additional restriction that was not expressly imposed by Parliament.
Finally, medical suitability remains important
The Court’s interpretation of the age provision does not mean that every couple is automatically entitled to IVF treatment regardless of medical circumstances.
Instead, once the statutory age-bar was found not to be an automatic disqualification in the circumstances, the authorised medical institution remained entitled to examine the couple and determine whether ART treatment could medically be performed.
7. Judgment and Final Outcome
The Gujarat High Court allowed the petition and set aside the rejection of the couple’s request.
The Court permitted the petitioners to approach an appropriate institution of their choice for Assisted Reproductive Technology services.
At the same time, the medical institution was allowed to examine the petitioners and determine whether IVF or another ART procedure could be performed.
Therefore, the couple’s request could not be rejected merely because of the wife’s age, particularly when the statutory interpretation adopted by the Court meant that one spouse remained within the prescribed age bracket.
The Court also clarified that the use of the gamete of the spouse who was over the applicable age limit would remain subject to the discretion of the treating clinic and the requirements of the ART framework.
8. Legal Principle
The case establishes an important principle of statutory interpretation:
The age limits prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act apply to individuals and do not automatically create a combined upper-age prohibition for a commissioning couple.
Consequently, where one spouse satisfies the applicable statutory age requirement, the couple cannot automatically be denied ART services merely because the other spouse has crossed the corresponding age limit.
However, medical suitability and other statutory requirements continue to apply.
9. Why Is This Case Important for Law Students?
This judgment is important because it demonstrates how courts interpret regulatory legislation affecting personal and reproductive choices.
It illustrates several principles of statutory interpretation:
- Courts must read related statutory provisions together.
- A restriction should not be expanded beyond the language of the statute without sufficient justification.
- Definitions contained in a statute can significantly influence the interpretation of operative provisions.
- The purpose and scheme of legislation may assist courts in resolving ambiguity.
- Judicial interpretation can protect individual choices while still respecting statutory safeguards.
Furthermore, the case demonstrates the difference between statutory eligibility and medical suitability. A person may overcome a particular statutory objection, but treatment can still remain subject to medical evaluation and professional requirements.
10. Quick Revision
| Point | Remember |
|---|---|
| Court | Gujarat High Court |
| Date | 2 September 2026 |
| Judge | Justice Nirzar S. Desai |
| Main Statute | Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 |
| Key Provision | Section 21(g) |
| Important Definition | Section 2(e), “commissioning couple” |
| Core Issue | Whether one spouse’s age disqualifies the entire couple |
| Court’s Approach | Age restrictions operate individually |
| Outcome | Petition allowed; couple permitted to approach an authorised institution for ART services |
| Important Limitation | Medical suitability remains subject to expert evaluation |
One-Line Takeaway
Under the Gujarat High Court’s interpretation of Section 21(g) of the ART Act, a commissioning couple cannot automatically be denied IVF merely because one spouse has crossed the applicable age limit when the other spouse remains within the statutory age bracket.
11. Did You Know?
The Gujarat High Court’s reasoning followed the approach adopted earlier by the Calcutta High Court in Sanchita Ghosh v. Union of India.
In that case, the Calcutta High Court similarly held that where either spouse of a commissioning couple satisfies the prescribed age requirement, the couple should not automatically be barred from accessing ART services.
Thus, the Gujarat decision contributes to an emerging line of judicial interpretation concerning age restrictions and commissioning couples under the ART Act.
