A Mother’s Right to Try Again: How Indian Courts Are Protecting the Dream of Parenthood Beyond Age Limits

By Dr. Samir Sekhar, Executive Director, Kiran Infertility Center

In my years of practice at Kiran Infertility Center, I have learned one truth that no textbook ever taught me the desire to be a parent does not follow a calendar. It does not pause at a birthday. It does not surrender to a statute. And increasingly, India’s judiciary is affirming exactly that.

Two recent court rulings have moved not just the medical community, but every person who believes that parenthood is a fundamental human right. Let me take you through these cases because they matter deeply, and every woman and couple in India deserves to know about them.

The Case That Started the Conversation Punjab and Haryana High Court

This is not a story about breaking the law. This is a story about a family, a loss, and an unwavering will to try again.

In 2023, a woman underwent IVF treatment and conceived twins. During the pregnancy, one foetus tragically did not survive. But one healthy baby girl was delivered a moment of joy wrapped in grief. The couple cherished their daughter and, as many parents do, began to dream of giving her a sibling. A complete family. A second chance at the fullness they had imagined.

When they approached a fertility centre, they were met not with a medical assessment but with a legal barrier. The wife had turned 51. Under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, the prescribed age limit for women undergoing IVF is 21 to 50 years. The centre had no choice but to inform them they were no longer eligible.

The couple refused to accept this as their final answer. They approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and their counsel made a clear, compassionate argument the woman was in excellent health, with no major medical condition that would prevent a safe second pregnancy.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal listened. He considered the couple’s circumstances, their medical fitness, their informed willingness to take personal responsibility. The couple’s counsel offered to file an undertaking before the authorities, accepting full responsibility for any injury or damage that may result from the treatment.

The Court accepted this. On May 19, Justice Bansal ordered: “The petitioners shall furnish the aforesaid undertaking before the competent authority and the fertility centre would be free to proceed with further treatment.”

One sentence. A world of difference.

The Chhattisgarh High Court When Grief Became the Grounds for Justice

If the Punjab and Haryana case was about a couple wanting more the Chhattisgarh case was about a couple who had lost everything.

A husband and wife aged 55 and 49 respectively had lost their only child in 2022. The grief was so profound, so all-consuming, that they were simply unable to take any steps toward rebuilding their family immediately. When they finally found the strength to try, they approached a fertility clinic and were denied. The reason? The husband had crossed the prescribed male age limit of 55 under the ART Act.

Justice Amitendra Kishore of the Chhattisgarh High Court stepped in with a ruling that was both legally sharp and deeply humane. The court noted that the wife remained well within the statutory age limit, both partners were medically fit, and that denying them treatment would amount to a “permanent deprivation” of their right to experience parenthood.

The April 24 order stated clearly: “The petitioners have suffered an irreparable personal loss, the delay in seeking treatment is bona fide and justified, the wife is within the permissible age limit, both petitioners are medically fit, and denial of treatment would result in permanent deprivation of their right to experience parenthood.” The court went further it called for a purposive interpretation of the ART Act, reminding us that this legislation was designed to facilitate access to ethical reproductive technologies, not to create unreasonable barriers. The provision prescribes age limits, the court noted, but does not expressly prohibit judicial consideration in exceptional cases, nor does it create a blanket embargo overriding constitutional rights.

What These Rulings Mean A Fertility Specialist’s Perspective

At Kiran Infertility Center, we have always approached every patient as an individual — not a data point, not an age bracket, not a legal category. These rulings powerfully validate that approach.

What both courts are essentially saying is this:

• Medical fitness matters more than a number on a birth certificate
• Informed consent is a powerful and legitimate foundation for reproductive decisions
• Exceptional human circumstances grief, loss, tragedy deserve exceptional consideration
• The ART Act was written to protect patients, not to permanently close doors on medically fit individuals

This does not mean age limits are irrelevant. They exist for genuine medical reasons, and we respect them. But as these judgments show, the law itself recognizes that there are circumstances where a rigid application of age limits would cause more harm than good.

Our Commitment at Kiran Infertility Center

If you are someone who has been told that your age makes you ineligible — please come speak with us before you give up. At KIC, we offer:

• Comprehensive medical evaluation to assess your true fertility potential
• Advanced IVF and donor egg protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve
• Legal guidance and documentation support for couples navigating age-related restrictions
• High-risk pregnancy monitoring for older mothers
• Compassionate counselling for couples who have experienced pregnancy loss or child loss

The law is evolving. Medicine is advancing. And at Kiran Infertility Center, hope is always the first thing we offer.

Reach out to Dr. Samir Sekhar and the KIC team today. Your story deserves to be heard.