Can a Husband's Age Bar His Wife from IVF? Chhattisgarh High Court Interprets the ART Act
Can a woman who meets the statutory age requirements for IVF be denied treatment because her husband has crossed the prescribed age limit for men?
The Chhattisgarh High Court has addressed this question in an important judgment concerning the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. In Archana Tiwari and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, decided on October 6, 2026, the Court permitted a couple to proceed with IVF treatment even though the husband was 57 years old and the wife was 47.
The Court held that the husband's age, by itself, could not automatically disqualify his wife, who independently satisfied the statutory age requirement. It also emphasised that reproductive autonomy forms part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment is significant for couples seeking assisted reproduction, IVF clinics interpreting statutory eligibility requirements and healthcare professionals navigating the relationship between medical assessment and legal restrictions.
However, the ruling does not remove the statutory age limits or exempt couples from other medical, ethical and legal requirements.
What happened in the case?
The petitioners were a married couple who had been trying to have a child for approximately 22 years but had no surviving child. The wife was 47 years old, while her husband was 57. Their attempts to achieve parenthood had included earlier fertility treatment.
The wife underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) in 2013, but the treatment did not result in a successful pregnancy. She conceived in 2015, but the pregnancy ended in a miscarriage at approximately four months.
After conventional treatment did not achieve their goal, the couple approached Aayush Test Tube Baby Centre in Raipur to pursue in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).
Following medical examination and counselling, the clinic considered them suitable for the proposed treatment, subject to the required permission from the competent authority.
The couple submitted a representation seeking permission on June 24, 2026. The clinic also recommended that permission be considered following appropriate counselling and informed consent.
However, on July 31, 2026, the request was rejected because the husband had crossed the prescribed upper age limit for men under the ART Act.
The couple challenged the rejection before the Chhattisgarh High Court, arguing that the wife's independent eligibility had not been properly considered.
What does Section 21(g) of the ART Act say about age limits?
Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 prescribes the age limits within which registered ART clinics may provide assisted reproductive technology services.
The provision specifies that services may be provided to:
A woman above 21 years and below 50 years of age.
A man above 21 years and below 55 years of age.
In this case, the wife was within the prescribed age range for women, while the husband had exceeded the upper limit for men.
The authorities treated the husband's age as a reason to deny the couple access to treatment. The central legal question was whether the husband's ineligibility automatically made his wife ineligible as well.
The couple argued that Section 21(g) establishes separate age limits for women and men. It does not expressly state that crossing the prescribed age limit by one spouse automatically disqualifies the other spouse, even when the latter independently meets the applicable criteria.
The Court accepted this interpretation in the particular circumstances of the case.
Why did the Chhattisgarh High Court permit IVF treatment?
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad examined the statutory language, the circumstances of the couple and the constitutional protection afforded to reproductive autonomy.
The Court observed that Section 21(g) prescribes separate, gender-specific age limits. It does not expressly create a combined or cumulative age restriction for a commissioning couple under which the age of one spouse automatically determines the eligibility of the other.
The wife was 47 and therefore within the statutory age range applicable to women. She had also been medically assessed and found suitable for the proposed treatment.
The Court reasoned that the husband's age could not, by itself, extinguish the wife's independent eligibility.
It also considered the couple's prolonged history of infertility and their previous treatment attempts. The authorities had rejected their request solely because the husband had crossed the prescribed age limit, without adequately accounting for the wife's independent eligibility in the circumstances presented.
The Court held that such a rigid interpretation would introduce a composite age restriction that the statutory provision did not expressly prescribe.
Accordingly, it set aside the rejection and directed the authorities and the clinic to permit the couple to proceed with IVF/ART treatment, subject to medical suitability and compliance with all other applicable requirements.
Reproductive autonomy under Article 21
An important aspect of the judgment is its discussion of reproductive autonomy as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court recognised that decisions concerning parenthood and reproductive choices fall within an important sphere of personal autonomy.
It observed that a rigid and mechanical application of an age restriction should not result in an unintended and disproportionate denial of the opportunity to pursue parenthood where one spouse independently meets the prescribed age criterion and the treatment is medically permissible.
The judgment stated that the statutory framework must be interpreted in light of its purpose and the constitutional rights involved.
However, reproductive autonomy does not mean that statutory restrictions can simply be disregarded. The Court acknowledged that the age limits and other requirements under the ART Act must be respected.
Its conclusion was narrower: the age restriction applicable to the husband could not automatically be treated as a bar to treatment for the wife, who independently satisfied the relevant age criterion.
The ruling therefore illustrates how courts may interpret healthcare regulations alongside constitutional rights, without treating those rights as an automatic exemption from statutory safeguards.
Does the judgment remove the age limits under the ART Act?
No. This is an important distinction. The Court did not strike down Section 21(g), invalidate the statutory age limits or establish a general right to IVF regardless of age.
Instead, it held that the provision does not expressly make the eligibility of one spouse automatically dependent on the other spouse's age.
The Court directed the couple's treatment to proceed subject to the wife's medical suitability and compliance with the remaining legal requirements.
It also directed that the wife crossing the age of 50 during the treatment cycle covered by the order would not, by itself, require that ongoing cycle to be stopped.
The ruling should therefore be understood as a case-specific interpretation of the statutory provision rather than a blanket exemption from the ART Act.
Other couples may have different medical circumstances, treatment histories or eligibility issues. Their cases must be assessed in light of the applicable law and the facts.
What does the judgment mean for IVF clinics and prospective parents?
The decision has practical implications for both healthcare providers and people seeking assisted reproduction.
For IVF clinics
Clinics should assess eligibility in accordance with the ART Act and the applicable rules and regulations. Where one spouse has crossed the statutory age limit, the clinic should carefully examine the relevant legal provisions rather than assume that the other spouse is automatically ineligible in every circumstance.
At the same time, clinics must not treat this judgment as permission to disregard statutory requirements. Medical assessment, informed consent, appropriate counselling and all other applicable safeguards remain necessary.
The judgment also highlights the importance of documenting clinical findings and the reasons for decisions concerning treatment eligibility.
For prospective parents
Couples who encounter an age-related refusal should seek a clear explanation of the legal basis for the decision.
They should also retain relevant medical assessments, counselling records, representations submitted to the authorities and written responses to their requests.
The ruling demonstrates that the interpretation of an eligibility provision may be legally contestable in particular circumstances. It does not guarantee that every challenge to an age-based refusal will succeed.
Where a dispute arises, the statutory provisions, medical circumstances and applicable legal remedies should be examined individually.
How does this fit into the wider debate on IVF age restrictions?
The Chhattisgarh High Court's decision forms part of a wider judicial debate over the application of age restrictions under the ART Act.
Courts have been asked to consider how statutory eligibility rules interact with reproductive autonomy, medical suitability and treatment that has already begun.
The issues can be difficult because the law must regulate assisted reproduction while accounting for individual medical circumstances and the constitutional interests of those seeking treatment.
The Chhattisgarh ruling focuses on the interpretation of separate age limits for women and men. It concludes that the age restriction applicable to one spouse cannot automatically be converted into a combined age bar for both spouses when the statutory language does not expressly provide for such a rule.
Its practical importance lies in the distinction between enforcing the age limits that Parliament prescribed and creating an additional restriction that is not expressly contained in the legislation.
The ruling does not resolve every question concerning IVF age restrictions, and its application to other cases will depend on their facts and the relevant legal framework.
Conclusion
The Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment in Archana Tiwari and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others clarifies an important issue under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
The Court permitted a 47-year-old woman and her 57-year-old husband to proceed with IVF after finding that the husband's age alone could not automatically disqualify his wife, who independently met the statutory age requirement.
The judgment recognises reproductive autonomy under Article 21 while preserving the requirement to comply with medical, ethical and statutory safeguards. It also addresses the continuation of an ongoing treatment cycle if the woman crosses the age of 50 during treatment pursuant to the order.
For IVF clinics, the decision highlights the importance of interpreting statutory eligibility requirements carefully. For prospective parents, it demonstrates that an age-based refusal may warrant legal examination where the statutory criteria have been applied in a way that does not account for an individual's independent eligibility.
Ultimately, the ruling is a case-specific interpretation of the ART Act, not an abolition of its age restrictions, and should be read in the context of the facts and directions contained in the judgment.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or medical advice. IVF eligibility and treatment decisions depend on the applicable law, clinical assessment and individual circumstances. Consult a qualified professional for advice on a specific case.
The Author :
Dr. Sunil Khattri
+91 9811618704
Dr Sunil Khattri MBBS, MS(General Surgery), LLB, is a Medical doctor and is a practicing Advocate in the Supreme Court of India and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
Comments