Mumbai witnessed a lively courtroom drama when the Bombay High Court on Tuesday cleared a woman to withdraw her plea for custody of 16 frozen embryos. These embryos, frozen since January 2022, are from her and her estranged husband's own eggs and sperm. The woman’s lawyers said she will now knock on the doors of the National Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and Surrogacy Board in New Delhi for justice. The National ART Board is the body that handles disputes under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. This act has special powers to settle embryo and surrogacy matters. The couple, both in their 40s, tied the knot in 2021. Soon after, they created and froze 16 embryos at a south Mumbai clinic, paying a yearly storage fee of Rs 25,000, expenses that the woman claims were borne by her mother. Sadly, their relationship cooled off, and she filed complaints of cruelty and took legal action against her husband under the Domestic Violence Act. But here’s the heart of the matter: The 46-year-old wife wants to become a mother. In December 2022, she asked for the embryos to be transferred to another clinic of her choice. However, her husband objected. The original clinic refused to move the embryos without both spouses' consent, as per the ART Act. Furious and feeling trapped, the woman petitioned the Bombay High Court. By July, the court sent notices to the central government, the National ART Board, both involved clinics, and her estranged husband. She claimed her husband "deserted" her since August 2023, not living at his last known address. Transferring frozen embryos is not a walk in the park—under Rule 28.9, permission from the National ART Board and consent from both clinics and parties is essential. The new clinic agreed to accept the embryos. On Monday, the woman’s counsel, Jamshed Mistry, asked the court to allow withdrawal of her plea so she could approach the National ART Board first. On Tuesday, Justices Riyaz Chagla and Farhan Dubash granted this request, giving her liberty to move ahead. She argued that the clinic's refusal to transfer embryos without her husband's consent was “an abuse of process of law,” violating her "reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and decisional privacy," which are protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The clinic’s senior counsel, Ravi Kadam, responded that they were only following the law and were ready to transfer embryos if the National Board approved it. Meanwhile, the woman said that requiring her husband's renewed consent, especially after her husband left her, was a “structural mechanism of reproductive subjugation.” She claimed, “A woman, biologically prepared and emotionally committed to embrace motherhood through embryos created with lawful and informed consent, is denied that right due to the unilateral and deliberate withdrawal, silence, or disappearance of her estranged husband.” Now, her next legal battlefield is the National ART Board in New Delhi. The drama around these frozen embryos continues, highlighting complex issues around marriage, motherhood, and the law.