I. Common Fertility Treatment Planning Disputes Before Marriage

1. Non-disclosure of infertility or reproductive health conditions

• Concealing infertility, PCOS, azoospermia, genetic disorders, or prior sterilisation.
• May raise issues of fraudulent consent to marriage under personal laws.

2. Disagreement on IVF / ART before marriage

• One partner may insist on IVF screening or embryo freezing before marriage.
• Conflict over timing, cost, and medical intervention.

3. Genetic screening and embryo selection disputes

• Ethical conflict over pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

4. Surrogacy intentions

• Whether couple plans to use surrogate motherhood if infertility arises.

5. Reproductive autonomy conflicts

• Disagreement over whether and when to have children.

6. Family interference

• Parents pressuring for fertility testing before marriage.

II. Legal Principles Governing These Disputes (India)

Indian courts do not directly regulate “marriage fertility planning contracts,” but rely on:

• Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
  • Includes privacy, dignity, reproductive autonomy
• Informed consent in medical law
• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (as interpreted by courts)
• Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) regulatory framework
• Tort principles (medical negligence, misrepresentation)
• Marriage validity under Hindu Marriage Act / Special Marriage Act (fraud, consent)

III. Important Case Laws (India)

1. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009)

• Recognised reproductive autonomy as part of Article 21.
• Held that a woman has the right to make decisions regarding:
  • pregnancy continuation
  • reproductive choice

Principle:

Reproductive autonomy = fundamental aspect of personal liberty.

Relevance:
In pre-marriage fertility planning disputes, neither partner can legally coerce the other into fertility procedures.

2. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

• Landmark judgment establishing right to privacy as fundamental right.
• Privacy includes:
  • bodily autonomy
  • reproductive decisions
  • medical information confidentiality

Relevance:

• One partner cannot legally force disclosure of all medical fertility history without consent.
• Protects confidentiality of IVF/infertility records before marriage.

3. Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016)

• Addressed forced sterilisation and reproductive health violations.
• Court emphasised:
  • dignity in reproductive healthcare
  • informed consent is mandatory

Relevance:

• Any pre-marital fertility testing must be voluntary.
• Coercive family-driven testing may violate constitutional rights.

4. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008)

• Concerned surrogacy and parentage disputes.
• Recognised complexities of assisted reproduction in Indian law.

Key principle:

• Legal parentage in ART arrangements is not straightforward.
• Courts must protect child welfare in reproductive disputes.

Relevance:

• Pre-marriage agreements on surrogacy/IVF must consider future parentage uncertainty.

5. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department (Uttar Pradesh) (2022)

• Expanded interpretation of reproductive autonomy and abortion rights.
• Held:
  • unmarried women also have reproductive choice rights under MTP framework.

Relevance:

• Marriage is not a condition for reproductive autonomy.
• Fertility decisions cannot be dictated by future marital expectations.

6. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

• Recognised right to privacy and control over personal life details.

Relevance:

• Fertility history, infertility status, and medical conditions are protected private information.
• Disclosure cannot be compelled beyond legal necessity.

7. Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital (2010, Delhi HC)

• Recognised reproductive healthcare as part of right to life and dignity.
• Focused on maternal health rights.

Relevance:

• Supports the principle that reproductive healthcare decisions must prioritise dignity and access, not social pressure before marriage.

IV. How Courts Would Treat Pre-Marriage Fertility Disputes

1. Misrepresentation claims

If one partner hides infertility:

• Court may treat it as fraud only if it goes to the root of marriage consent
• However, Indian courts are cautious in annulling marriages solely on infertility concealment.

2. Forced medical testing clauses

• Likely unenforceable if they violate bodily autonomy.

3. IVF agreements before marriage

• May be treated as non-binding personal arrangements, not enforceable contracts.

4. Family pressure scenarios

• Courts will prioritise constitutional rights over social/family pressure.

V. Key Legal Takeaways

• Fertility decisions are protected under Article 21 (privacy + autonomy).
• No legal mechanism allows compulsory fertility testing before marriage.
• Misrepresentation disputes depend on whether infertility was material to consent.
• Assisted reproduction issues are still evolving legally in India.
• Courts strongly protect bodily integrity and informed consent.