The Karnataka High Court has taken up an important legal question on reproductive rights, examining whether a married woman can undergo IVF treatment using donor sperm after her husband withdrew consent for the use of his frozen sperm while divorce proceedings are still pending.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, hearing the matter on July 28, observed that while the Court cannot compel the husband to allow the use of his stored sperm, it would examine whether the law permits any alternative that protects the woman's right to motherhood within the existing legal framework.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a 41-year-old woman from Bengaluru, and her husband married in 2022 and underwent several unsuccessful IVF procedures after they were unable to conceive naturally. Before disputes arose, the couple had stored their eggs and sperm at a fertility clinic for future treatment.
Later, the husband initiated divorce proceedings and withdrew the written consent required under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, preventing the clinic from proceeding with IVF using his sperm.
The woman approached the High Court, stating that prolonged divorce litigation could permanently deprive her of the opportunity to become a mother because of her advancing age. She argued that if her husband's sperm could not legally be used, she should at least be allowed to undergo IVF using donor sperm.
During the hearing, Justice Govindaraj made it clear that the Court could not force the husband to consent to the use of his stored sperm.
However, the judge noted that the dispute involved evolving medical technology and legal questions that the legislature may not have specifically anticipated.
"This is not purely legal. We can't look at it technically. These are newer technologies which keep coming. We have to try and solve the problem and give them some recourse," the Court observed.
The Bench also questioned whether the husband's objection was only to the use of his sperm or to his estranged wife becoming a mother altogether.
The Court further indicated that if donor-assisted conception were legally permitted, safeguards could be considered to ensure that the husband would not face future claims relating to maintenance, inheritance or succession by a child born through such treatment.
Addressing the petitioner's counsel, the Court observed:
"You will have no claim for any property or maintenance... You won't have any claim whatsoever."
Appearing for the Union of India, Assistant Solicitor General Sadhana Desai argued that the ART Act currently recognises IVF treatment only for commissioning couples and certain categories of eligible single women. Since the parties remain legally married, she submitted that allowing donor-assisted IVF without statutory backing could create legal complications relating to parentage, birth registration and succession.
The Court acknowledged these concerns and reiterated that any relief granted must remain consistent with the statutory framework.
The husband's counsel sought time to obtain instructions after the Court suggested possible safeguards limiting future legal claims. The High Court also encouraged both parties to explore an amicable resolution.
The matter has been adjourned to August 18, when the Court will continue examining whether existing law permits any legal mechanism to protect the petitioner's reproductive rights while the divorce proceedings remain pending.
