📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Amiyashrivastava (talk) (Uploads)
Health
Chhattisgarh HC Grants IVF to Couple Though Husband Over Legal Age Limit
✍️ Law Trend
🗓 09 Oct 2026, 07:36 AM
👁 9
The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a couple can proceed with in‑vitro fertilisation even though the husband is older than the age prescribed by law, citing reproductive rights.
The Chhattisgarh High Court delivered a landmark judgment permitting a married couple to undergo in‑vitro fertilisation (IVF) despite the husband being older than the age limit stipulated under existing regulations. The bench examined the statutory provisions that cap the age of either partner for assisted reproductive technology and concluded that the restriction cannot override the constitutional right to family life.
The petition, filed by the couple seeking fertility treatment, argued that the age ceiling was arbitrary and infringed on their right to procreate. The court observed that medical advances have extended the reproductive lifespan and that the law should not unduly restrict access to legally available procedures.
In its order, the judges directed the relevant fertility clinic to proceed with the IVF cycle, subject to standard medical assessment, and instructed the state health department to review the age‑related clause in the assisted reproduction guidelines. The decision is expected to influence similar cases across India, where age limits for IVF remain a contentious issue.
Legal experts note that while the ruling does not overturn the statutory limit, it sets a precedent for interpreting the provision in light of individual rights and medical feasibility. The case highlights the growing tension between traditional regulatory frameworks and evolving reproductive technologies.
The judgment underscores the court’s willingness to balance statutory norms with personal liberty, potentially prompting legislative reconsideration of age restrictions for assisted reproduction in the country.
The petition, filed by the couple seeking fertility treatment, argued that the age ceiling was arbitrary and infringed on their right to procreate. The court observed that medical advances have extended the reproductive lifespan and that the law should not unduly restrict access to legally available procedures.
In its order, the judges directed the relevant fertility clinic to proceed with the IVF cycle, subject to standard medical assessment, and instructed the state health department to review the age‑related clause in the assisted reproduction guidelines. The decision is expected to influence similar cases across India, where age limits for IVF remain a contentious issue.
Legal experts note that while the ruling does not overturn the statutory limit, it sets a precedent for interpreting the provision in light of individual rights and medical feasibility. The case highlights the growing tension between traditional regulatory frameworks and evolving reproductive technologies.
The judgment underscores the court’s willingness to balance statutory norms with personal liberty, potentially prompting legislative reconsideration of age restrictions for assisted reproduction in the country.