The Bombay High Court on Friday emphasised the need to ensure that working women are extended maternity benefits that they are entitled to under law, so that they are not forced to compromise on their role as caregivers to their children in their quest to attain self-sufficiency and economic independence [Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis v. BMC & Ors.].

A Division Bench of Justices RI Chagla and Advait Sethna made the observation while granting relief to an anesthesiologist and Assistant Professor at the Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital.

Her request for maternity benefits was earlier rejected by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation(BMC)-run hospital on the ground that she was only a contractual employee.

The Court yesterday ordered that she be paid the requisite maternity benefits in a time-bound manner. It emphasised that the object of maternity benefit is to protect the dignity of motherhood and provide financial support to women when they are unable to work.

"In today’s day and age, more and more women are joining the workforce. In this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self-sufficiency and economic independence does not have to compromise on her role as a care giver to her child," it further observed.

The Court added that the State is, therefore, expected to be more sensitive to deserving persons while considering the grant of maternity benefits, such as the petitioner in the present case.

"She ought not to be made to seek orders from this Court in cases like the present,” the High Court added.

The Court proceeded to quash an October 21, 2024, communication by which the hospital had refused her maternity leave on the ground that she was a contractual employee.

It directed the BMC and KEM Hospital to pay and extend maternity benefits to the petitioner under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, not later than within a period of six weeks.

The petitioner was first appointed on a contractual basis at the hospital in January 2022, and her tenure was extended from time to time, most recently in June 2024, with an extension till June 30, 2025.

The accompanying 2024 agreement recorded that she would not get holidays or vacations under BMC service rules applicable to permanent staff.

She applied for 26 weeks of paid maternity leave on October 7, 2024, which the hospital rejected on October 21, 2024, saying contractual employees were ineligible for a break in service.

She then moved the High Court seeking directions to the BMC and KEM Hospital to grant her maternity benefits.

She challenged the hospital’s refusal to treat the leave period sought as “sanctioned maternity leave” and its decision to label it a “service break” with no paid benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.

Meanwhile, she delivered her child on November 7, 2024, and during the six months of her maternity leave, continued to pursue her claim for statutory benefits.

She resumed work on April 7, 2025 and requested that her work be assigned keeping in view her status as a nursing mother.

But due to a lack of nursing facilities, breaks and uncertainty about duty hours, she tendered her resignation in May, effective from April 8, seeking to be relieved from the remaining tenure of the contract.

Advocate Subit Chakrabarti, appearing for the doctor, argued that she had completed the statutory 80 days of work, issued timely notices under Section 6 and was therefore fully eligible for maternity benefits under the Act.

He submitted that denying her benefits solely because she was on a contract violated her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and was contrary to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which overrides any restrictive terms in an agreement.

On June 23, 2025, the High Court was informed that BMC had agreed in principle to grant her maternity benefits, but no concrete steps followed.

BMC’s counsel, Chaitanya Chavan, argued that her post was a stopgap contractual engagement governed by an agreement under which she was not entitled to service benefits like maternity leave and alleged that she had not disclosed her pregnancy when executing the 2024 contract.

He maintained that service rules confined maternity benefits to regular employees with longer service.

The Court held that this stand was “ex facie contrary” to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which does not carve out any exception for contractual staff and overrides inconsistent contractual terms.

It also noted that this position was taken despite the corporation earlier agreeing in principle to extend benefits, remarking that it was unable to fathom the "complete volte‑face' by BMC and KEM after virtually agreeing before the Court to pay maternity benefits to the doctor.

Advocate Subit Chakrabarti appeared along with Advocates Chaitrika Patki, Khushnumah Banerjee and Aashka Vora briefed by Vidhii Partners for Karkhanis.

Chavan along with Rupali Adhate and Komal Punjabi appeared for BMC.

Additional government pleader Himnashu Takke and Manish Upadhye appeared for the State.

[Read judgment]