The Madras High Court recently observed that when there is no dispute regarding an employee's marriage, the employer should not demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt to grant maternity benefit..While criticising a magistrate court for denying maternity benefits to an office assistant, a bench of Justices R Subramanian and G Arul Murugan directed the Registrar General of the High Court to compensate the woman with ₹1,00,000 for the mental distress caused by the respondents' actions.“No doubt, Maternity Leave is granted to married woman. A marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed...The reliance placed on G.O.(Ms) No.84 is also ill conceived. 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.".The Court condemned the magistrate's actions as entirely unwarranted and inhumane. It observed that despite the availability of evidence, the magistrate appeared to have deliberately sought reasons to reject the maternity leave application. “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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, appears to have taken archaic view of the matter and has fished for and found out reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted.".The petitioner B Kavitha, an office assistant in the magistrate court, was denied maternity leave by the district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, Kodavasal. Kavitha had lost her first husband in 2020 and later married Bharathi on April 28, 2024. When she applied for maternity leave in October 2024, her request was rejected on three grounds: her marriage was not registered, an FIR against Bharathi for cheating could not prove marriage, and her pregnancy occurred before marriage. The magistrate argued that maternity leave was only for married women..The High Court disagreed, stating that while maternity leave is granted to married women, the employer cannot demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that Kavitha had filed a complaint against Bharathi for false marriage promises, but they later married with family support, providing photos and an invitation as proof. Instead of considering this, the magistrate questioned the pregnancy itself..The Court criticized this approach, urging judicial officers to adopt a more practical outlook.It thus overturned the denial, directed the Principal District Judge to grant maternity leave and ordered the Registrar General to compensate Kavitha with ₹1,00,000 for the distress caused, payable within four weeks.Advocate K Shivakumar appeared for the petitioner.Advocate NK Kanthimathi appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]
The Madras High Court recently observed that when there is no dispute regarding an employee's marriage, the employer should not demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt to grant maternity benefit..While criticising a magistrate court for denying maternity benefits to an office assistant, a bench of Justices R Subramanian and G Arul Murugan directed the Registrar General of the High Court to compensate the woman with ₹1,00,000 for the mental distress caused by the respondents' actions.“No doubt, Maternity Leave is granted to married woman. A marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed...The reliance placed on G.O.(Ms) No.84 is also ill conceived. 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.".The Court condemned the magistrate's actions as entirely unwarranted and inhumane. It observed that despite the availability of evidence, the magistrate appeared to have deliberately sought reasons to reject the maternity leave application. “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 District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, appears to have taken archaic view of the matter and has fished for and found out reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner. This, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted.".The petitioner B Kavitha, an office assistant in the magistrate court, was denied maternity leave by the district munsif-cum-judicial magistrate, Kodavasal. Kavitha had lost her first husband in 2020 and later married Bharathi on April 28, 2024. When she applied for maternity leave in October 2024, her request was rejected on three grounds: her marriage was not registered, an FIR against Bharathi for cheating could not prove marriage, and her pregnancy occurred before marriage. The magistrate argued that maternity leave was only for married women..The High Court disagreed, stating that while maternity leave is granted to married women, the employer cannot demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that Kavitha had filed a complaint against Bharathi for false marriage promises, but they later married with family support, providing photos and an invitation as proof. Instead of considering this, the magistrate questioned the pregnancy itself..The Court criticized this approach, urging judicial officers to adopt a more practical outlook.It thus overturned the denial, directed the Principal District Judge to grant maternity leave and ordered the Registrar General to compensate Kavitha with ₹1,00,000 for the distress caused, payable within four weeks.Advocate K Shivakumar appeared for the petitioner.Advocate NK Kanthimathi appeared for the respondent..[Read Order]
