Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Challenging the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, in Cr.M.P.No.124 of 2025 dated 08.07.2025, this Criminal Revision Petition is filed.

Case Background:-

2.The petitioners filed a joint petition under Sections 4(iii)(a)(II) and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 05:43:30 pm ) 4(iii)(a)(III) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, seeking permission of the learned Trial Court to recognize petitioners 1 and 2 as intended parents and to grant custody of the child to be born through surrogacy, with the third petitioner acting as the surrogate mother. They also produced an affidavit regarding insurance coverage and placed on record all documents mandated under the Act for due consideration. However, while recording the sworn statement of the third petitioner, who is the proposed surrogate mother, the learned Trial Court noted that she failed to correctly depose her date of marriage. This led the learned Trial Court to question her bonafides. The learned Trial Court reasoned that in surrogacy proceedings, the willingness and background of the surrogate mother must inspire full confidence, and any ambiguity, even inadvertent, could cast doubt. On this basis, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Case has been filed.

Submissions:-

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the dismissal was wholly unwarranted and unsustainable. The third petitioner, being unaccustomed to court proceedings, became nervous and stated that her marriage was around 15 years ago but could not recollect the exact date at that moment. However, a proof affidavit was already filed clearly mentioning the date of marriage as 07.08.2008. The dismissal, solely on this trivial lapse, overlooks the fact that all requirements under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/09/2025 05:43:30 pm ) the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, particularly those under Chapter III concerning regulation of surrogacy procedures, were duly complied with. It was argued that the learned Trial Court, instead of dismissing the application, ought to have objectively assessed the compliance and allowed the Revision Case.
4.I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully examined the records.

Analysis:-

5.The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, is a beneficial legislation enacted with the primary objective of regulating surrogacy in India and, more importantly, addressing the growing problem of infertility among young couples. Infertility has emerged as a pressing social and medical concern, with studies showing that lifestyle changes, environmental factors, and health conditions are contributing to a decline in fertility rates in the country. The Act, therefore, seeks to provide a legally structured, ethical, and medically safe pathway for childless couples to experience parenthood (Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India1 and Union of India v. Satya2).