The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a woman below 50 years can independently avail Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services, including IVF, even if her husband has crossed the prescribed maximum age of 55 years.Clarifying the scope of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, the court held that ART services were available either to a commissioning couple or to a woman on her own, and her eligibility could not be made dependent on her husband’s age.“ART services can be availed either by a couple or a woman on her own, and there is no requirement that only a couple must approach the ART clinic or the bank for this purpose,” Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya held while deciding six connected petitions raising common questions of law.The court clarified, however, that the statutory age limits of 50 years for women and 55 years for men operated independently. If either crossed the applicable maximum age, the right to avail ART services as a commissioning couple did not survive.“The age restrictions are for the spouses separately,” the court observed. The Union of India was represented in the matter by Senior Central Government Counsel Dheeraj Jain along with Central Government Counsel Gurneet Sagoo.The lead petition concerned a couple who had approached an authorised clinic for IVF treatment. Nine embryos were created and cryopreserved on November 22, 2023, when both were 47.Two frozen embryo transfers, in July 2024 and February 2025, were unsuccessful in achieving a continuing pregnancy. Four embryos remained cryopreserved. The woman crossed 50 on December 10, 2025, while her husband was still below 55.The couple sought permission to use the remaining embryos, contending that eligibility should be assessed by treating them as one unit. Rejecting the contention, the court held that merely freezing embryos when both partners were eligible did not confer a vested right to undertake subsequent stages of treatment after the prescribed age limit had been crossed.“Merely because embryos were frozen before the woman crossed the maximum age, would not entitle her to undertake the subsequent stage of the procedure,” it held.Explaining the wider implications, the court held that a woman could exercise her independent statutory right irrespective of whether she was married. “A woman, who may or may not be married, has been conferred an independent right under the Act to avail ART services,” it observed.Consequently, women petitioners who had not crossed 50 were given the option of independently availing ART services, if they wished, even where their husbands had crossed 55. The court clarified that this independent entitlement did not extend to a woman who herself had crossed the prescribed maximum age.“A woman has the right to avail the services/undertake procedures independently under the ART Act, irrespective of her husband having crossed the prescribed age limit,” Justice Dahiya held, disposing of all six petitions.