The Madras High Court has directed the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, to grant maternity leave to an Office Assistant who was denied the same on the ground that she might have conceived before her marriage.

Asking the Judicial Officers to take a pragmatic view of things, the High Court awarded Rs 1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony suffered by her.

The Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking records pertaining to the impugned order on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to provide Maternity Leave to the petitioner who is working as Office Assistant before the Magistrate within the time stipulated.

The Division Bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan said, “Unfortunately, the learned Principal District Judge has also followed the footsteps of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, and filed a report stating that there are questions about legitimacy of the claim for maternity leave. We are unable to appreciate the mindset of the employer particularly in this case the Judicial Officers. It is high time, the Judicial Officers reform themselves and take pragmatic view of things”, it said.

Advocate K.Shivakumar represented the Petitioner while Advocate N.K.Kanthimathi represented the Respondents.

Factual Background

The petitioner, who was working as an Office Assistant in the said Court, lost her husband on January 28, 2020. Thereafter, she fell in love with one Bharathi and they got married on April 28, 2024. She conceived and applied for Maternity Leave on October 18, 2024. The same was rejected on the ground that she had not produced a Marriage Certificate.

The Judicial Magistrate, in the order impugned, returned the application for maternity leave after noting that the marriage was not registered and the pregnancy appeared to be before the marriage. Reliance was also placed upon G.O.(Ms) No.84, which increased the period of maternity leave from 9 months to 12 months to contend that maternity leave was admissible only to married women and not to others.

Reasoning

The Bench at the outset observed, “Maternity Leave is granted to married women. A marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed.”

The Bench found that the petitioner had lodged a complaint on March 14, 2024, accusing her husband,d T. Bharathi, of having a relationship with her on the promise of marriage, which resulted in her conceiving a child. An FIR was also registered, and the said Bharathi had taken an Anticipatory Bail. At the instance of elders and well-wishers, the said Bharathi had married the petitioner. “It is the specific case of the petitioner that she conceived when her husband Bharathi had a relationship with her on a promise of marriage. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been denied maternity leave on the said ground. No one else had disputed the marriage”, it said.

In light of the fact that prima facie evidence was available, the Bench held that the Magistrate erred grievously in rejecting the application for maternity leave on assumptions and surmises. “The action of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, to say the least is inhuman. In the days were even live in relationships are recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned D istrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, appears to have taken archaic view of the matter and has fished FIR and found out reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted”, it added.

Referring to the Order in question, the Bench explained that the effect of the said G.O. is only to increase the number of days of maternity leave from 270 days to 365 days. It is the Fundamental Rules which governed grant maternity leave. “No doubt, maternity leave can be availed of by a married woman only, but the employer is not expected to seek proof beyond doubt of the factum of marriage”, it said. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the fact that the petitioner married Bharathi in April 2024 would show that the case of the petitioner that she conceived and thereafter got married to Bharathi was probable, and there was nothing to disbelieve the said statement.

Setting aside the impugned Order, the Bench held, “...we direct the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, to grant the maternity leave as per the entitlement of the petitioner, any leave taken by the petitioner from the date of her application for grant of maternity leave will be treated as maternity leave and she will be paid the full salary for the said period.”

“We also find that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be compensated for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unjust return of her application. We therefore direct the Registrar General, the first respondent to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner”, it concluded.

Cause Title: B. Kavitha v. The Registrar General & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:720)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate K.Shivakumar

Respondent: Advocate N.K.Kanthimathi

Click here to read/download Order






Madras High CourtJustice R SubramanianJustice G.Arul Murugan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.