Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed to quash the order passed by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate (‘Magistrate’), and consequently to direct the respondents to provide maternity leave to the petitioner who is working as Office Assistant (‘OA’) before the Magistrate, the division bench of R. Subramanian* and G. Arul Murugan, JJ. stated that while it is true that maternity leave can be availed only by a married woman, the employer is not expected to seek proof beyond doubt of the fact of marriage. Hence, denying maternity leave on the grounds of non-registration of the marriage and lack of formal proof was not valid. Therefore, the Court set aside the order that returned the application for maternity leave and directed the Principal District Judge to grant the maternity leave in accordance with the petitioner’s entitlement. Additionally, the Court directed the Registrar General to pay Rs.1 Lakh compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony caused by the unjust rejection of her application.
Background
The petitioner, who was working as an Office Assistant in the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate’s Court, tragically lost her husband on 28-01-2020. After a period of time, she developed a relationship with an individual, and the two got married in 2024. Subsequently, the petitioner conceived and, in accordance with the rules, applied for Maternity Leave on 18-10-2024. However, her application for Maternity Leave was rejected on the grounds that she had not produced a Marriage Certificate.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the Magistrate, in the order impugned had returned the application for maternity leave on three primary grounds:
-
Marriage had not been registered
-
FIR lodged could not be considered as proof of marriage,
-
Pregnancy appeared to have occurred prior to the marriage.
Additionally, the Magistrate relied on Government Order (‘GO’) which extended the maternity leave period from 9 months to 12 months and argued that maternity leave is admissible only to married women, excluding others.
The Court stated that, despite the arguments presented by the respondents in an attempt to justify the impugned order, it was unable to support the reasoning behind the decision in the order.
The Court stated that, while maternity leave is granted to married women, it emphasised that a marriage need not necessarily be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot demand proof beyond doubt regarding the fact of marriage unless there is a dispute over its validity.
In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 14-03-2024, accusing her husband of having a relationship with her under the promise of marriage, which resulted in her conceiving a child. An FIR was registered, and it was noted that the husband had obtained anticipatory bail. Subsequently, at the instance of elders and well-wishers, the petitioner and her husband got married in a temple. The petitioner presented photographs of the marriage, along with the presence of relatives and the wedding invitation, to substantiate her claim. Based on this evidence, the Court found that the reasoning for denying maternity leave on the grounds of non-registration of the marriage and lack of formal proof was not valid.
The Court said that, in the absence of any other material, the Magistrate should have acted upon the evidence provided by the petitioner. Unfortunately, the Magistrate went as far as doubting the fact of pregnancy on the grounds that the marriage appeared to have occurred after the pregnancy.
The Court observed that the petitioner had clearly stated that she conceived when her husband had a relationship with her on the promise of marriage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner should not have been denied maternity leave on this basis. Additionally, the Court pointed out that no one had disputed the marriage, and the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence, including photographs, the wedding invitation, and testimonies from relatives, to substantiate her claim. Hence, the Court found the reasoning for denying maternity leave to be unjustified.
The Court highlighted that when prima facie evidence is available, the Magistrate, in its considered opinion, erred grievously in rejecting the application for maternity leave based on assumptions and surmises. The Court found the action of the Magistrate to be, to say the least, inhuman. In an era where even live-in relationships are recognised by the Supreme Court, the Court observed that the Magistrate seemed to have taken an archaic view of the matter. The Court further noted that the Magistrate had seemingly searched for reasons to reject the petitioner’s application, rather than considering the presented evidence fairly. This approach, according to the Court, was wholly unwarranted and unjust.
The Court stated that the reliance placed on Government Order was ill-conceived. The effect of the said GO was merely to increase the number of days of maternity leave from 270 days to 365 days, but it does not alter the fundamental rules that govern the granting of maternity leave. While it is true that maternity leave can be availed only by a married woman, the employer is not expected to seek proof beyond doubt of the fact of marriage.
The Court noted that the sequence of events, such as the FIR filed in March 2024 and the marriage of the petitioner in April 2024, made the petitioner’s claim that she conceived and subsequently married her husband plausible. There was no reason to disbelieve her statement.
The Court further expressed disappointment that the Principal District Judge had followed the same flawed reasoning as the Magistrate and filed a report questioning the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim for maternity leave. The Court emphasised its inability to appreciate the mindset of the employer, particularly the Judicial Officers, in this case. It concluded by stating that it is high time for Judicial Officers to reform themselves and adopt a more pragmatic view of such matters.
The Court, therefore, set aside the order that returned the application for maternity leave and directed the Principal District Judge to grant the maternity leave in accordance with the petitioner’s entitlement. The Court further ordered that any leave taken by the petitioner from the date of her application for maternity leave would be treated as maternity leave, and she would be paid the full salary for that period.
Additionally, the Court recognised that this was a fit case for the petitioner to be compensated for the mental agony caused by the unjust rejection of her application. As a result, the Court directed the Registrar General to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order.
[B. Kavitha v. Registrar General, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 1766, decided on 20-03-2025]
*Order by: Justice R.Subramanian
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Shivakumar
For Respondents: Ms.N.K.Kanthimathi
