A sperm or egg donor has no legal claim over a child and cannot be recognized as the biological parent, the Bombay High Court ruled today, granting a 42-year-old woman visitation rights to her five-year-old twin daughters. The woman had petitioned for access to her daughters, who were born via surrogacy and were living with her husband and younger sister, who was the egg donor.
The petitioner’s husband argued that because his sister-in-law was the egg donor, she had a legitimate right to be considered the twins’ biological parent, thereby denying his wife’s parental rights.
However, Justice Milind Jadhav rejected this argument, stating that while the petitioner’s younger sister was the egg donor, she had no legal standing to claim herself as the twins’ biological parent. The court clarified that the sister’s role was merely that of an egg donor, and at most, she could be considered a genetic mother, but nothing more.
An advocate appointed to assist the court pointed out that since the couple’s surrogacy agreement was made in 2018, prior to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, it was governed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) guidelines from 2005.
According to these guidelines, the court emphasized that both the donor and the surrogate mother must relinquish all parental rights. Therefore, in this case, the twins are legally recognized as the daughters of the petitioner and her husband.
“The guidelines clearly state that the sperm or egg donor shall not have any parental rights or responsibilities towards the child. In light of this, the petitioner’s younger sister has no right to claim herself as the biological mother of the twins,” the high court concluded.
The plea revealed that the couple had been unable to conceive naturally, and the petitioner’s sister had volunteered to donate her eggs. The twins were conceived in December 2018 through a surrogate mother and were born in August 2019.
In April 2019, the sister and her family were involved in a road accident that claimed the lives of her husband and daughter.
The petitioner lived with her husband and twins from August 2019 until March 2021. However, after a marital dispute in March 2021, the husband moved out with the children without informing his wife.
The husband claimed that his wife’s sister, the egg donor, had been living with him since the accident to help care for the twins due to her depression.
The petitioner filed a police complaint and sought interim visitation rights through a local court, but her application was rejected in September 2023, leading her to appeal to the high court.
The wife argued that her sister had only donated her eggs, was not the surrogate mother, and thus had no legal rights over the twins.
The high court, in its decision, noted that the 2018 surrogacy agreement between the intending parents, the surrogate mother, and the doctor was signed by the petitioner, her husband, and the doctor.
“It is evident that the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 (the husband) are recognized as the intending parents. There is no ambiguity in observing that the petitioner, along with Respondent No. 1, signed the surrogacy agreement as the intending parents,” the court stated.
Justice Jadhav ruled that the lower court’s decision to deny the wife visitation rights was made without proper consideration and was therefore overturned.
