HC Clears Fertility Treatment for Canada-Based Couple Despite Age Bar
Embryos created before age limit remain valid for transfer
Undertaking on medical risks made mandatory by Court
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: April 14, 2026:
Punjab & Haryana High Court has permitted a Canada-based couple to proceed with embryo transfer despite the wife being over 50, ruling that embryos created earlier when she was within the permissible age can still be used. The Court emphasized that statutory age limits under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021, cannot override the couple’s right to parenthood when embryos were lawfully created earlier.
Case Title: Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad (Dead) through LRs – a significant Supreme Court judgment on property and succession disputes dealing with inheritance rights, title determination, and evidentiary standards in civil proceedings.
For a deeper understanding of will validity, probate law, and succession principles in India, explore this comprehensive collection of Supreme Court judgments on wills and succession law .
[ Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad – Complete Judgment ]
Case Background
A Canada-based couple approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking permission for the wife, now over 50, to undergo embryo transfer using embryos preserved since 2019. At the time of creation, the wife was 47 and the husband 48, well within the permissible age under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act, 2021. One embryo had already resulted in the birth of a girl child, while three remained preserved.
The couple’s plea arose because the ART Act bars assisted reproductive procedures for women above 50. The IVF centre confirmed the woman’s good health and absence of major medical complications but sought legal clarity before proceeding.
Key Legal Issues
- Age Restriction under ART Act, 2021
- The Act sets upper age limits: 50 years for women and 55 years for men.
- The couple’s case tested whether embryos created before crossing the age limit could still be used after the woman turned 50.
- Precedent Case (January 2026)
- Earlier, the High Court had allowed IVF treatment for a couple despite statutory age bars, ruling that the law should not deny parenthood opportunities when medical science permits.
- That case involved a couple who lost their only child and sought IVF despite age restrictions.
- Medical Undertaking Requirement
- The Court mandated that the couple furnish an undertaking accepting responsibility for any medical risks or complications.
- This balances reproductive rights with medical accountability.
Court’s Observations
- Justice Jagmohan Bansal held that embryos created when the woman was within the permissible age remain valid for transfer, even if she has since crossed the statutory threshold.
- The Court emphasized that law should not be interpreted rigidly to deny reproductive rights, especially when embryos were lawfully created earlier.
- By requiring an undertaking, the Court ensured that medical facilities are protected from liability while allowing the couple to exercise their reproductive choice.
Broader Legal Significance
- Flexibility in ART Law: The ruling clarifies that age restrictions under the ART Act are not absolute when embryos were created earlier.
- Reproductive Rights: It strengthens the recognition of reproductive autonomy, balancing statutory limits with individual rights.
- Medical Accountability: The mandatory undertaking ensures that couples assume responsibility for risks, protecting medical institutions from undue liability.
This judgment reflects a progressive interpretation of reproductive law, recognizing the evolving role of assisted medical science in family planning.
[LEGAL RESEARCH RESOURCES]
EXTRACTS FROM BOOK, WILL WRITING SIMPLIFIED, By Dr Ravinder Kumar Anand. [📘 Buy Will Writing Simplified online: Amazon | Flipkart ]
Detailed FAQ for ART
Q1: What does the ART Act, 2021 say about age limits?
The Act bars assisted reproductive procedures for women above 50 and men above 55.
Q2: Why was this case unique?
The embryos were created when the wife was below 50. The Court ruled that age restrictions cannot invalidate embryos lawfully created earlier.
Q3: Did the Court allow treatment without conditions?
No. The couple must furnish an undertaking accepting responsibility for any medical risks.
Q4: What precedent did the Court rely on?
A January 2026 ruling where IVF was permitted despite age restrictions, emphasizing that law should not deny parenthood opportunities.
Q5: Does this mean all women above 50 can undergo IVF?
Not automatically. The ruling applies specifically when embryos were created before crossing the age limit.
Q6: What role did medical opinion play?
The IVF centre confirmed the woman’s good health, which supported the Court’s decision.
Q7: How does this affect fertility law in India?
It sets a precedent that statutory age bars under ART Act must be interpreted flexibly, especially in cases involving preserved embryos.
Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision is a landmark in balancing statutory restrictions with reproductive rights. By allowing embryo transfer for a woman over 50, the Court recognized that law must adapt to medical realities and human aspirations. The mandatory undertaking ensures accountability, while the ruling itself strengthens the principle that reproductive autonomy cannot be curtailed by rigid age limits when embryos were lawfully created earlier.