1 week ago
Kerala High Court Extends Surrogacy Eligibility Until Husband Turns 56
A married couple in Kerala was using surrogacy to try to have a child.
Their embryo had been frozen in 2022.
The clinic stopped extending services after the husband turned 55.
The couple asked the Kerala High Court for help.
The court looked at an earlier decision about the age limits for women using surrogacy.
That decision said eligibility continues through a person’s 50th year and ends when they turn 51.
The court used the same reasoning for the husband’s age limit.
It said the couple could continue receiving surrogacy services until the husband turns 56.
The Kerala High Court allowed a couple to continue surrogacy services until the husband turns 56.
The couple’s embryo had been cryopreserved in 2022, before services were halted.
The couple approached the court after services stopped when the husband turned 55.
The court applied its earlier interpretation of the age range for intending women.
It said a restrictive interpretation could permanently deprive the couple of having a child through surrogacy.
- Who
- A married couple from Kollam and the Kerala High Court, before Justice Harisankar V Menon.
- What
- The court allowed the couple to continue surrogacy services until the husband turns 56.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Kerala High Court and involved a couple from Kollam, Kerala.
- When
- The embryo was cryopreserved in 2022; the court issued its order on August 21.
- Why
- The couple challenged the stoppage of services after the husband turned 55, arguing that an earlier ruling on age eligibility should also apply to him.
Couple’s Interpretation
Restrictive Eligibility Reading
Age-limit interpretation
Couple’s Interpretation
The couple argued that the reasoning used for an intending woman should also allow the husband to continue surrogacy services through his 55th year, until turning 56.
Restrictive Eligibility Reading
Services were not extended after the husband reached age 55, with Section 4(iii)(c) cited as the basis for stopping them.
Effect of the frozen embryo
Couple’s Interpretation
The couple emphasized that the procedure had already begun and that their embryo had been cryopreserved in 2022.
Restrictive Eligibility Reading
The court’s order recognized the cryopreserved embryo while applying the statutory age-related restriction as interpreted in the earlier ruling.
Key facts
- Court
- Kerala High Court
- Judge
- Justice Harisankar V Menon
- Applicable law
- Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
- Husband’s age
- 55 when the petition was heard; services may continue until he turns 56
- Embryo status
- Cryopreserved in 2022
- Earlier ruling
- Rajitha P V held that an intending woman remains eligible throughout her 50th year
- Relevant provision
- Section 4(iii)(c) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
Quotes
Justice Harisankar V Menon
Kerala High Court judge hearing the couple’s petition.
“Motherhood is a deeply personal and fundamental aspect of life. Any interpretation that results in depriving someone of it permanently has to be approached with caution. If one interpretation leads to a complete and irreversible loss – in this case, the inability to ever bear a child through surrogacy – it demands a higher level of scrutiny.”
indianexpress.com
“In my opinion, the same yardstick requires to be applied as regards the case of the husband also.”
indianexpress.com
Sources
Related news
Kerala High Court Allows Couple’s IVF Despite Age Limit
Madras High Court Grants Surrogacy Parentage to Couple
Gujarat Couples Challenge IVF Age Cutoff Amid Advanced-Pregnancy Risks
Himachal High Court grants surrogacy maternity leave to doctor
Maharashtra Commission Orders IVF Doctor to Pay Surrogacy Compensation
Centre tells court wife needs husband's consent for IVF
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
Kerala High Court Rejects Student’s Short Attendance Plea
Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Over Kissing Child’s Genitals
High Court Refuses Relief to Couple in Child Labour Case
Kerala Court Ruling, Patriarchy Remarks Trigger Debate Over Personal Laws
