Gujarat couple in 50s, who lost doctor son to suicide, win IVF legal battle

After losing their 25-year-old son–a doctor pursuing postgraduate medical studies–to suicide in his Jaipur medical college hostel room four years ago, a Gujarat couple in their 50s decided to attempt to rebuild their family through IVF.

However, their hope ran into an unexpected barrier: the mother had crossed the statutory age limit for assisted reproduction, even though the father remained within the age limit prescribed under the law. The Gujarat High Court has now removed that legal obstacle, allowing the couple to seek assisted reproductive technology services after finding that their case was covered by a series of High Court precedents on how the age limits under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, apply to married couples.

“The petitioners were emotionally disturbed and, therefore, decided to have a child,” the High Court recorded while setting out the facts of the case. The woman, however, had reached menopause and was unable to conceive naturally, prompting the couple to turn to in-vitro fertilisation.

Their attempt to undergo IVF began at a clinic in Mehsana but was stopped at the threshold because of the age limits laid down in the 2021 law. s per Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act women above 21 and below 50 years of age, and for men above 21 and below 55, are permitted to use ART services.

The woman in this case had crossed 50, while her husband was 54. “In the instant case, as petitioner No. 1 (wife) has crossed the age of 50 years and petitioner No. 2 (husband) is 54 years old, the concerned authority refused to provide IVF treatment to the petitioners,” the court noted.

The couple's advocate Mohit Banker challenged that decision, arguing that the law should not be read as automatically disqualifying a married couple merely because one spouse had crossed the prescribed age limit. Their lawyer relied on the Act's definition of a “commissioning couple”, which refers to an infertile married couple approaching an authorised assisted reproductive technology clinic or bank for treatment.

The couple argued that their eligibility should be considered in that context rather than by treating the age-related ineligibility of one spouse as an automatic bar to both. Their counsel told the court that “the fertility of the couple is required to be considered and not that of an individual partner”.

Since the husband remained below 55, the couple argued, the authorities should not have refused them treatment solely because the woman was above 50. Justice Desai noted that while the woman had crossed the upper age limit, her husband, at 54, still fell within the statutory eligibility criteria.

The court then considered a series of rulings from other High Courts that had addressed similar disputes. A key precedent came from the Calcutta High Court, whose reasoning was reproduced in the Gujarat High Court's judgment of September 2.

An earlier ruling said that “unless the restriction is applicable to both the spouses who comprise of the commissioning couple, there is no bar” on the couple approaching an appropriate clinic. It further observed that “the age-related ineligibility of one of the spouses need not affect the other” where the two together constitute a commissioning couple.

Under that interpretation, if either spouse remained within the age limits prescribed under Section 21(g), the couple could seek assisted reproductive technology services. The Calcutta High Court had also said that where one spouse was eligible and the other was not, it would be for the treating clinic to decide whether the gamete of the spouse outside the age limit could be used in the treatment process, the judgment notes.

The Gujarat High Court also noted that the couple had placed before it a compilation of nine judgments dealing with similar questions, including a recent ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Although government counsel opposed the petition, the court recorded that they “could not dispute the legal proposition” advanced by the couple's lawyer.

The state government's counsel, Angesh Panchal, and the Union government counsel Pradip Bhate submitted that an appropriate order could be passed on the facts of the case. Justice Desai said that, given the “series of judgments taking a similar view”, there was no need to reproduce all the relevant portions of those decisions.

The court added that the respondents had not produced any judgment taking a contrary position. “The present petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed,” the court held, quashing the July 2026 rejection letter and directing that the couple be permitted to avail themselves of Assisted Reproductive Technology services.

The ruling, however, does not itself guarantee that the couple will undergo a particular IVF procedure. Their medical suitability and the manner in which treatment may be carried out will remain matters for an appropriate assisted reproductive technology clinic and treating doctors.

Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.

Expertise: Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including: Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.

Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of...