Centre Tells High Court Consent Needed for IVF at Koramangala Clinic

The Central government has informed the Karnataka High Court that a woman cannot use her estranged husband’s frozen sperm for an IVF procedure without his consent while their marriage remains legally subsisting. The submission was made before Justice Suraj Govindaraj during the hearing of a plea filed by a Bengaluru woman seeking directions to an IVF clinic in Koramangala to proceed with treatment using the frozen gametes.

The Centre also submitted to the court that donor sperm cannot be used in such circumstances unless the husband is established to be infertile. The case raises key legal questions regarding reproductive rights and consent surrounding stored genetic material during marital disputes.

According to facts presented before the court, the couple married in 2022 and subsequently sought fertility treatment after being unable to conceive naturally. During the period when their marital relationship was intact, the couple had already undertaken six IVF procedures. As part of their treatment, both partners had their gametes frozen at the facility for potential future use in assisted reproduction.

The couple's relationship later deteriorated, and they began living separately after approximately two years of marriage. The husband has since initiated divorce proceedings against the woman on the grounds of cruelty, with the divorce case currently at an initial stage in the family court.

Advocate Mir Parveez Ahamed, appearing for the woman, submitted that his client was prepared to provide a binding undertaking to the court regarding property rights. He stated that she was ready to guarantee that no claim would be made by her, or on behalf of any child born from the procedure, against the husband’s individual property or the property belonging to his joint family.

However, the Central government maintained its position that explicit marital consent remains mandatory under law to proceed with assisted reproduction using stored spousal gametes while the marriage subsists. The High Court is continuing to examine the petition.