New Delhi, March 21 -- The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a plea by a 46-year-old Mumbai resident seeking permission for the transfer and implantation of her 16 cryopreserved embryos without her estranged husband's consent, directing her instead to approach the Bombay High Court as the appropriate forum. The case pertains to a woman and her estranged husband, residents of south Mumbai, who had in 2022 cryopreserved embryos created using his sperm and her ova. Their marriage ended in 2023, leading to a dispute over the use and transfer of the embryos. The matter was first taken to the Bombay HC, where the woman sought directions to a fertility clinic in south Mumbai to transfer the embryos to another facility. Her husband opposed the move, citing provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which require consent from both parties. Under Section 29 requires approval from the National Board for inter-clinic transfer. In September 2025, the woman withdrew her plea from the Bombay HC to approach the National Board in New Delhi. The Board rejected her request on February 3, prompting her to move the Delhi HC. In her petition, the woman also arguing that the law fails to address situations such as marital breakdown, desertion or mala fide refusal of consent by a spouse. She contended that while the law mandates consent at the stage of IVF procedures, it does not provide a remedial framework for exceptional circumstances, creating a legislative vacuum that undermines constitutional rights. Hearing the plea in Delhi, justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted at the outset that the woman had earlier approached the Bombay high court with the same grievance but withdrew her plea in September 2025 to seek approval from the National Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and Surrogacy Board. The court observed that after the National Board rejected her request on February 3, the petitioner ought to have returned to the Bombay HC to challenge the decision. It further remarked, "When the petitioner earlier moved the Bombay HC, then withdrew and then decided to come to the Delhi HC.you should have approached the Bombay high court and should not have come all the way from Mumbai to Delhi." With the court indicating its view, the petitioner chose to withdraw the plea, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, granting her liberty to approach the jurisdictional high court....