Husband Over 55, Wife Within Age Limit: Chhattisgarh HC Says Couple Cannot Be Denied IVF on the Husband's Age Alone

Case at a glance: The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an authority's rejection of a couple's request for ART treatment made only because the husband was over 55. As reported, it held that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 sets separate age limits for women and men, so the husband's ineligibility does not extinguish the wife's independent eligibility. The relief is confined to these facts.

The husband was about 57 and the wife about 47, married for about 22 years with no surviving child. An intrauterine insemination in 2013 failed, and the wife conceived in 2015 but miscarried at about four months. A registered ART clinic found them medically suitable but advised them to seek permission from the competent authority because the husband exceeded the age limit.

The authority rejected the request solely because the husband was over 55, treating his ineligibility as making the couple collectively ineligible. The wife had no medical contraindication. The couple filed a writ petition.

The Key Question Before the Court

Does a husband's age above the limit in Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act automatically take away his wife's independent eligibility under Section 21(g)(i)?

Separate Limits, No Composite Couple Age

As reported, the Court noted that Section 21(g) prescribes separate limits (women 21–50, men 21–55) and no combined age for commissioning couples, unlike the composite criteria for adoptive parents. Section 2(1)(n) defines “patients” as an individual or couple, which supports individual assessment.

The Court reasoned that the wife sought treatment within her own limit, with her husband's consent, and that imputing his age to her would add a restriction Parliament did not include. It held reproductive autonomy to be part of Article 21 and a rigid reading to be a disproportionate restriction. Medical fitness, informed consent and other safeguards remain mandatory.

The report lists several precedents relied on, including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), along with High Court decisions. This post does not independently verify them.

What the Court Actually Held

• The writ petition was allowed and the rejection based solely on the husband's age was set aside.
• Authorities and the clinic must permit IVF/ART treatment, subject to the wife meeting medical requirements and the couple complying with statutory, ethical and regulatory safeguards.
• If the wife turns 50 during a cycle begun under the order, that alone need not require discontinuing it, subject to medical advisability.
• The clinic is protected from adverse action for treatment given in compliance with the order.
• The relief is confined to these facts and waives no other mandatory requirement.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reads the ART Act's age limits as individual, not composite.
• It links reproductive autonomy under Article 21 to ART eligibility.
• It offers a template for couples with a mixed-age profile, though the relief is fact-specific.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Petitioners' Counsel

• Plead the separate-limit structure of Section 21(g) and the wife's own medical suitability.
• Seek protection for the clinic in the same order.

For State Counsel

• Expect challenges to composite-age rejections and ensure decisions explain which limit is relied on.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

As reported, women 21–50 and men 21–55 under Section 21(g).

No. The order is confined to its facts and does not waive other mandatory requirements.

The order says that alone need not require discontinuing a cycle begun under it, subject to medical advisability.

Conclusion