Union Of India vs Devayani S on 6 November, 2025

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Devayani S on 6 November, 2025

The 1st respondent Union of India in W.P.(C)No.37687 of 2024 filed this writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. W.P.(C)No.37687 of 2024 is one filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents therein to permit the writ petitioner No.1 to avail Assisted Reproductive Technology services utilising donor male gametes and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 therein to take immediate steps, so as to require the 4th respondent therein to provide ART services to the writ petitioner No.1.

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, respondents 1 and 2 herein are wife and husband aged 44 years and 55 years respectively. They have been undergoing treatment for infertility for a long time. According to respondents 1 and 2, the 1st respondent had undergone an In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) procedure on multiple occasions. The Doctors of the 5 th respondent hospital suggested the 1st respondent to proceed with 4 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 another IVF procedure. By that time, the 2nd respondent attained 55 years of age, and hence respondents 1 and 2 were barred by Section 21(g) of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, ('ART Act' in short). Respondents 1 and 2 contend that the 1st respondent is eligible under Section 21(g) of the ART Act to conduct the IVF procedure using donor sperm as she falls under the definition 'woman' under Section 2(1)(u) of the ART Act. However, the 5th respondent hospital is hesitant to provide her treatment. Under those circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 approached this Court with the writ petition.

4. The appellant Union of India filed a counter affidavit dated 17.01.2025 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs sought by respondents 1 and 2 and producing therewith Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents. In the counter affidavit, it is inter alia contended that the 1st respondent, being a married woman, falls within the category of 'Commissioning Couple'. Any married woman or married man constituting a commissioning couple wanting to undergo the ART procedure will have to meet both the conditions simultaneously as prescribed under Section 21(g). There is no indication in the ART Act that only one among the man or woman 5 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 constituting the commissioning couple undergoing the ART procedure needs to meet the age criterion prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. It is further contended by the appellant that Section 21(a) of the ART Act states that clinics must ensure that the commissioning couple is eligible to avail the assisted reproductive technology procedure. Therefore, the law is clear that the age limit under Section 21(g)(i) and 21(g)(ii) for a commissioning couple is required to be satisfied together to avail the ART procedure with or without the use of donor gametes. The appellant further relied on Rule 13(1)(f)(iii) of the ART (Regulation) Rules, 2022, whereby a married woman requires the consent of her husband as required in Form-8 for availing the service of the ART procedure. In short, the appellant contended that since the 2nd respondent has attained the age of 55 years and respondents 1 and 2 approached the 5th respondent hospital as a commissioning couple, they are not entitled to proceed with ART procedure.

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2025. The 6 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 learned Single Judge found that the 1st respondent's eligibility to apply for the ART procedure operates independently, despite the 2nd respondent's ineligibility, provided the 2nd respondent gives his consent for the procedure. Hence, when a woman wants to undergo an IVF procedure, only her age is considered relevant, irrespective of her husband's age and the same principle applies conversely to men. It was further found by the learned Single Judge that if the appellant's contention that both spouses must satisfy the age criteria is accepted, it would create an unconstitutional classification, treating married women and single women as separate and distinct classes. Such a classification would be a fallacy and would put married women at an unfair disadvantage when compared to single women to access ART procedures. The learned Single Judge further held that it can never be presumed that the parliament intended such an inequitable classification within a benevolent statute like the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant Union of India is now before this Court with the instant writ appeal.

6. The writ appeal was filed by the appellant with a delay of 139 days. By the order dated 26.08.2025 in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 7 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 2025, the Division Bench of this Court condoned the delay and also granted an order of stay of the impugned judgment till the disposal of the writ appeal.

7. Heard the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 5th respondent.

8. The learned ASGI made an extensive argument, pointing out various provisions under the ART Act and the Rules made therein. The submission of the learned ASGI is that when respondents 1 and 2 approached the 5th respondent hospital for an ART procedure as a commissioning couple, they cannot contend that one among them, i.e., the 1st respondent herein, should alone satisfy the age criteria stipulated under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. Since the Act treated the woman and the commissioning couple separately, a married woman can approach the ART clinic only as a commissioning couple, as defined under Section 2 (1)(e) of the Act and not as a single woman as defined under Section 2 (1)(u) of the Act.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for 8 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 respondents 1 and 2 also addressed us with extensive arguments relying on the various provisions in the ART Act, and in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which was amended by the 2010 Personal Laws (Amendment) Act. The learned counsel further relied on some of the provisions in the regulations called the Adoption Regulations, 2022, also in support of his arguments.

10. We have carefully perused the materials on record, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and also considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. Respondents 1 and 2 are admittedly now aged 44 years and 55 years respectively. They have been availing infertility treatment for a long time and have approached the 5th respondent hospital for the ART procedure. But the 5th respondent refused to provide them the service of the ART procedure, stating the reason that the 2 nd respondent has attained the age of 55 years and hence being a commissioning couple, they are ineligible to avail the ART procedure in view of Section 21(g) of the ART Act. But according to respondents 1 and 2, since the 1st respondent is intending to continue with the ART procedure using donor male gametes, she is eligible to avail the ART procedure, as she falls within the age 9 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 group prescribed in Section 21(g)(i) and also falls under the definition of woman in Section 2(1)(u) of the ART Act.

11. In order to understand the rival contentions of the parties in their proper perspective, relying on the law on the point, it would be appropriate to extract some of the provisions, the majority of which were extracted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.

12. Section 2(1)(a) of the ART Act defines 'Assisted Reproductive Technology', which reads as under;

"(a) assisted reproductive technology with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman."

13. As per Section 2(1)(b), "assisted reproductive technology bank" means an organisation which shall be responsible for the collection of gametes, storage of gametes and embryos and supply of gametes to the assisted reproductive technology clinics or their patients.

14. Section 2(1)(e) defines 'Commissioning Couple' which is read as under;

"(e) commissioning couple means an infertile married 10 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 couple who approach an assisted reproductive technology clinic or assisted reproductive technology bank for obtaining the services authorised of the said clinic or bank."

15. Section 2(1)(g) defines 'gamete' as sperm and oocyte.

16. Section 2(1)(h) of the Act defines 'Gamete Donor', which reads thus;

"(h) "gamete donor" means a person who provides sperm or oocyte with the objective of enabling an infertile couple or woman to have a child."

17. The word 'Woman' is defined under Section 2 (1)(u) of the Act, which is extracted hereunder;

"(u) woman means any woman above the age of twenty-

one years who approaches an assisted reproductive technology clinic or assisted reproductive technology bank for obtaining the authorised services of the clinic or bank."

18. Sections 21(a), 21(e), 21(g), 22, 27, and Section 31 of the said Act read thus;

"Section 21(a) - the clinics and banks shall ensure that commissioning couple, woman and the donors of the gametes are eligible to avail the assisted reproductive technology procedures subject to such criteria as may be prescribed.

xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 21(e) - the clinics and banks shall ensure that information about the commissioning couple, woman and donor shall be kept confidential and the information about 11 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 treatment shall not be disclosed to anyone except to the database to be maintained by the National Registry, in a medical emergency at the request of the commissioning couple to whom the information relates, or by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 21(g) - the clinics shall apply the assisted reproductive technology services, --

(i) to a woman above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty years;

(ii) to a man above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty-five years;

xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 22 - Written informed consent. -- (1) The clinic shall not perform any treatment or procedure without--

(a) the written informed consent of all the parties seeking assisted reproductive technology;

(b) an insurance coverage of such amount as may be prescribed for a period of twelve months in favour of the oocyte donor by the commissioning couple or woman from an insurance company or an agent recognised by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority established under the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999).

(2) The clinics and banks shall not cryo-preserve any human embryos or gamete, without specific instructions and consent in writing from all the parties seeking assisted reproductive technology, in case of death or incapacity of 12 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 any of the parties.

(3) The clinic shall not use any human reproductive material, except in accordance with the provisions of this Act to create a human embryo or use an in-vitro human embryo for any purpose without the specific consent in writing of all the concerned persons to whom the assisted reproductive technology relates.

(4) Any of the commissioning couple may withdraw his or her consent under sub-section (1), any time before the human embryos or the gametes are transferred to the concerned woman's uterus. Explanation --For the purposes of this section, the expressions--

(i) "cryo-preserve" means the freezing and storing of gametes, zygotes, embryos, ovarian and testicular tissues;

(ii) "insurance" means an arrangement by which a company, individual or commissioning couple undertake to provide a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, complication or death of oocyte donor during the process of oocyte retrieval; and

(iii) "parties" includes the commissioning couple or woman and the donor.

xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 27- Sourcing of gametes by assisted reproductive technology banks. -- (1) The screening of gamete donors, the collection, screening and storage of semen; and provision of oocyte donor, shall be done only by a bank registered as an independent entity under the provisions of this Act.

(2) The banks shall--

WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955

(a) obtain semen from males between twenty-one years of age and fifty-five years of age, both inclusive;

(b) obtain oocytes from females between twenty-three years of age and thirty-five years of age; and (c) examine the donors for such diseases, as may be prescribed. (3) A bank shall not supply the sperm or oocyte of a single donor to more than one commissioning couple. (4) An oocyte donor shall donate oocytes only once in her life and not more than seven oocyte shall be retrieved from the oocyte donor.

(5) All unused oocytes shall be preserved by the banks for use on the same recipient, or given for research to an organisation registered under this Act after seeking written consent from the commissioning couple. (6) A bank shall obtain all necessary information in respect of a sperm or oocyte donor, including the name, Aadhaar number as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, (18 of 2016), address and any other details of such donor, in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall undertake in writing from such donor about the confidentiality of such information.

Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, the expressions--

(i) "retrieval" means a procedure of removing oocytes from the ovaries of a woman;

(ii) "screening" means the genetic test performed on embryos produced through in-vitro fertilisation.

      xxx                 xxx              xxx              xxx
                                       14
WA No.2009 of 2025                                              2025:KER:83955

Section 31 - Rights of child born through assisted reproductive technology. -- (1) The child born through assisted reproductive technology shall be deemed to be a biological child of the commissioning couple and the said child shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges available to a natural child only from the commissioning couple under any law for the time being in force. (2) A donor shall relinquish all parental rights over the child or children which may be born from his or her gamete."

19. Rule 13(1)(f)(iii) of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Rules, 2022, ('ART Rules', in short) states that the ART clinic shall obtain consent for Intrauterine Insemination with donor semen as specified in Form-8. The said form is extracted hereunder for better understanding.

"CONSENT FOR INTRAUTERINE INSEMINATION WITH DONOR SEMEN I/We ...................................... being of legal age, authorise Dr............ to inseminate me intrauterine with semen/sperm of a donor Aadhar no...............(ART bank's no................; obtained from................ ART bank with valid registration no.................) for achieving conception.

I/We understand that even though the insemination may be repeated as often as recommended by the doctor, there is no guarantee or assurance that pregnancy or a live birth will result.

I/We have also been told that the outcome of pregnancy may not be the same as those of the general 15 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 pregnant population, for example in respect of abortion, multiple pregnancies, anomalies or complications of pregnancy or delivery.

I/We declare that we shall not attempt to find out the identity of the donor.

I, the husband, also declare that should my wife bear any child or children as a result of such insemination(s), such child or children shall be as my own and shall be my legal heir(s). (if applicable).

The procedure carried does not ensure a positive result, nor does it guarantee a mentally and physically normal body. This consent holds good for all the cycles performed at the clinic.

Signature of intending couple/intending woman Endorsement by the ART clinic I/We have personally explained to ............... and............. the details and implications of his/her/their signing this consent/approval form, and made sure to the extent humanly possible that he/she/they understand these details and implications.

Name, Address and Signature of the Witness from the Clinic Signed:...........(Husband) ...............(Wife) Name and Signature of the Doctor Name and Address of the ART Clinic Dated:.......

WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 Note.- An appropriate modification of this form may be used for Artificial Insemination or Intra-uterine Insemination of a single woman with donor semen."

20. As per Section 21(g) of the ART Act, the ART clinic has a duty to apply for the ART services only if the woman is above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years, and the man is above 21 years and below the age of 55 years. The issue involved in this case centres around this age restriction contained in Section 21(g) of the ART Act. When the appellant says that since respondents 1 and 2 approached the 5th respondent clinic as a commissioning couple, they both have to satisfy the age criterion, respondents 1 and 2 contend that the said criterion is applicable only if the 1st respondent is requesting the ART service by receiving male gamete from the 2nd respondent, her husband. Since she is willing to proceed with the ART procedure by using a third-party male gamete, she can avail the service of the ART procedure by treating herself as a woman defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the ART Act, and considering her age independently without clubbing it with the age of her husband, the 2 nd respondent.

21. When Section 2(1)(e) defines commissioning couple 17 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 and Section 2(1)(u) defines woman, it is pertinent to note that there is no definition of the word man in the ART Act. When a woman is given the right to seek ART services independently, as gatherable from the definition of woman under Section 2(1)(u) of the ART Act, a married woman can approach the ART clinic only as one among the commissioning couple under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. However, the definition of 'gamete donor' includes both men and women, since it speaks about a person who provides sperm or oocyte with the objective of enabling an infertile couple or woman to have a child.

22. From the reading of the provisions under the ART Act, we could foresee six circumstances of using the ART service such as; (i) the commissioning couple approach the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by using the oocyte of the wife and sperm of the husband, (ii) the commissioning couple approach the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by using the oocyte of the wife and sperm of a third party male gamete provider, (iii) the commissioning couple approach the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by using the oocyte of a third party gamete provider and the sperm of the husband,

(iv) the commissioning couple approach the ART clinic to obtain a 18 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 pregnancy by using the oocyte and sperm both of third party gamete providers, (v) a woman approaching the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by using her oocyte and a third party male gamete (sperm), and (vi) a woman approaching the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by completely using a third party gamete, that is, both oocyte and sperm.

23. The consent to be signed by the commissioning couple as per Rule 13(1)(f)(iii) of the ART Rules is necessary only when the couple wants to obtain a pregnancy with third-party donor semen. That means, the wife among the commissioning couple can proceed with the ART procedure by receiving a third-party male gamete (sperm) with the consent of her husband, as in the second circumstance mentioned above i.e., the commissioning couple approach the ART clinic to obtain a pregnancy by using the oocyte of the wife and sperm of a third party male gamete provider. The Rule is silent about the consent of the husband for the wife to receive a third-party oocyte. Therefore, the Rule prevents the wife from proceeding with the ART procedure by using a third-party male gamete (sperm) without the consent of her husband, if she approaches the ART clinic as a commissioning 19 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 couple. It is therefore clear from the provisions that, even after approaching the clinic as a commissioning couple, the woman is entitled to receive a third-party male gamete (sperm) with the consent of her husband.

24. At this juncture, it is relevant to note Ext.R1(a) report No.129 of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee produced by the appellant, and paragraphs 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant. The relevant portion of Ext.R1(a) report, which is extracted in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, reads thus;

"SUGGESTIONS:

4.14.14 One stakeholder has informed that the complications of IVF (Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, OHSS) are higher in younger woman. The earlier guideline had kept the cut off at 21 years. It has been suggested to keep the lower age limit for woman more than 20 years to ensure their safety. The upper age limit for the women/man should be decided based on factor viz (i) risk to maternal health due to pregnancy at advanced maternal age (ii) care of child until 18 years and average life expectancy in India.

4.14.15 The upper limit for woman should not be beyond 45 years and for man, it should be not be beyond 50 years. The combined age of the couple (woman and man) should not be beyond 90 years (this requirement is same as for adoption in India) 20 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE:

4.14.16 The criterion of age limit for a man and woman to avail ART services has been drafted in consonance with the provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2019. OBSERVATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS:

4.14.17 The Committee observes that the DHR has agreed to the stakeholders' suggestions to remove the phrase "legal age of marriage" from the definition of woman for approaching an ART centre as lower age of marriage is acceptable in some religions. The Committee observes that the ICMR Guidelines stipulates minimum of 20 years age for woman availing ART services. The Committee has already recommended removal of the term "legal age of marriage"

and prescribed that specific age i.e. 21 years in the definition of "woman" as mentioned in the Bill under clause 2(x), therefore, the Committee reiterates the minimum age criteria of 21 years for woman and man for availing ART services. The upper age limit for woman and man may be 50 and 55 years, respectively, as recommended by the Select Committee on Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2020. 4.14.18 Subject to the above recommendation, the clause is adopted". (emphasis supplied)

25. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, it is stated that the age restriction under the Act has been prescribed keeping in view of the fact that the welfare of the child is paramount. In the process of fulfilling the desire of a couple to become parents, the rights and welfare of the unborn 21 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 child that are of paramount importance should not be neglected. The sperm quality is compromised above the age of 55 years. The number of mutations in the father's genome increases, which leads to an increase in the incidence of congenital malformations in the child. The older parental age may be harmful to the child's health in terms of genetic mutations and epigenetics.

26. From Ext.R1(a) report No.129 of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee produced by the appellant, and the contentions in paragraphs 20 and 21 of the counter affidavit of the appellant as narrated above it is clear that the age restriction in Section 21(g) of the ART Act, in the case of women is fixed considering the risk to maternal health, if the pregnancy is below or above the age suggested by the expert stakeholders. The age restriction in the case of men is prescribed for the reason that the sperm quality will be compromised above the age of 55 years. Similarly, Ext.R1(a) report shows that while suggesting the upper age, the committee has taken into consideration the need to take care of the child until 18 years, and the average life expectancy in India.

27. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that, as rightly 22 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 argued by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, and noticed by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment, Regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulations 2022 prescribes the maximum composite age of prospective adoptive parents (couple) and the maximum age of single prospective adoptive parents separately. Such a composite age restriction is not there in the ART Act.

28. Noting that the Constitution of India guarantees equality of status and equality of opportunity to all citizens, irrespective of the fact, whether they are men and women and also that woman shall have equal rights and privileges along with men that the State may make special provisions for welfare of the women, Section 8 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, was amended to remove the incapacity of a married woman to take in adoption of a son or daughter merely on the basis of her marital status by the Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2010, as under;

"8. Any female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption:

Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter except with the consent of her 23 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 husband unless the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind."

29. The reading of Ext.R1(a) report and the provisions under the ART Act will make it clear that the welfare of the child to be begotten to a woman by adopting the ART procedure is the paramount consideration of the Act. The incorporation of various provisions in the Act is to ensure that the child to be born using the ART service is a healthy child. It is also the intention behind the age restriction that the child should get parental care at least till he or she attains 18 years. But for that reason, it cannot be said that in all cases, irrespective of the method by which they obtain the pregnancy, both wife and husband must be within the age group mentioned in Section 21(g) of the ART Act, if they approach the ART clinic as a commissioning couple.

30. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the contention of the appellant that if the spouses approached the clinic for availing the ART service as a commissioning couple, both of them must satisfy the age criteria as stipulated under Section 21(g) of the ART Act, if accepted, it will be a 24 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 discrimination among the married woman and unmarried woman and divorced woman. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, during the course of arguments submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 herein are even gone to the extend of expressing readiness to avail the status of divorced persons, so as to make respondent 1 eligible to apply for ART procedure as a single woman, if the law does not permit them to avail the ART services as a commissioning couple. If the argument of the appellant is accepted, the 1st respondent will be eligible for the ART services the moment she acquires the status of a single woman, but immediately when she acquires the status of a married woman and approaches the clinic with her husband, even if she is ready to proceed with ART procedure by receiving male gametes from a third party, she will become ineligible for the treatment. On analysing the provisions under the ART Act, in the light of Ext.R1(a) report, Adoption Regulations 2022, and also the provisions under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that the age restriction in the case of women mentioned in Section 21(g)(i) is applicable to all the six 25 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 circumstances mentioned above, since that age restriction is prescribed considering the risk to maternal health, if the pregnancy is below or above the age suggested by the expert stakeholders and also the health of the child to be begotten, especially when the woman availing the ART procedure is the biological mother who has to carry the child in his womb, unlike that in the case of surrogacy. At the same time, the age restriction in the case of men prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act, it can only be said that the same is applicable only to the circumstance of using his male gamete (sperm), either as one among the commissioning couple or as a third- party male gamete provider. When the ART Act does not provide composite age criteria for the commissioning couple, or Section 21(g) of the ART Act does not speak about the age criterion there in as applicable to the persons approaching the ART clinic as a commissioning couple, prescribing such age restriction on mere assumptions is unwarranted and against what is intended by the legislature. A court of law cannot read between the lines when the statute is clear on this aspect. While considering all these aspects, we agree with the finding of the learned Single 26 WA No.2009 of 2025 2025:KER:83955 Judge that the classification of a married woman and a single woman differently, when they approach the ART clinic, either as one among the commissioning couple or as a single woman, would put married woman at an unfair disadvantage when compared to single woman. The learned Single Judge rightly found that the parliament never intended such an inequitable classification within a benevolent statute like the ART Act.

31. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to hold that the impugned judgment is perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction.

In the result this writ appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-


                                  MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

MSA
                                 27
WA No.2009 of 2025                                2025:KER:83955

                     APPENDIX OF WA 2009/2025




PETITIONER ANNEXURES




Annexure 1             TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2025
                       OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN WRIT
                       PETITION NO. 35158 OF 2024

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court