More Women Joining Workforce To Become Economically Independent, State Cannot Deny Maternity Benefits: Bombay High Court

At the time when more and more women are joining the workforce for becoming economically independent, the authorities by denying them maternity leave benefits cannot compromise their role as a care giver to the child, observed the Bombay High Court while ordering the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to pay and extend the benefits to a Doctor, working in the civic-run KEM hospital, at the earliest.

A division bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna highlighted the fact that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 was brought in for protecting the 'dignity' of motherhood.

"The object of maternity benefit is to protect the dignity of motherhood and to provide financial support/security to a woman and her child for the period she is not working. 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," the bench observed in the judgment pronounced today.

The bench was seized with a plea filed by one Dhanashri Karkhanis, a doctor, who was engaged as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis in the Department of Anaesthesia at the civic-run KEM hospital in Mumbai from January 4, 2022, which was extended from time-to-time. The petitioner signed an agreement with the BMC through KEM hospital's Dean on August 12, 2024, duly recording the terms and conditions including the payment terms and her non- entitlement for holidays/vacation as available under the Service Rules applicable to permanent and regular employees of the Corporation.

However, by an application filed on August 20, 2024, the petitioner requested in writing to the Dean to make appropriate provisions for her maternity leave, in terms of the provisions of the 1961 Act and therefore, requested to sanction six months maternity leave in her favour. The hospital however, by an order passed on October 21, 2024 refused to grant her any benefits on the ground that she was a 'contractual' employee.

When the petition was heard last year in June 2025, the civic body initially agreed to extend the benefits under the Act, however, later on, this year, it refused to make the payments to the petitioner.

"We are dealing with a legislation which is enacted with an avowed object to guarantee maternity benefits to working women. The preamble to the said Act provides for regulation of employment of women in certain establishments with provisions for extending maternity benefits to them. The statutory provisions engrafted under the said Act ought to be read in light of such object and purpose sought to be achieved so as to ensure fair and judicious implementation of the said Act and its provisions," the judges observed.

The judges while agreeing with the petitioner held that the stand taken by the BMC and its hospital, coupled with their conduct does interfere with the fundamental right of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The bench made it clear that it cannot fathom the complete 'volte-face' approach by the BMC, which initially agreed to grant the benefits in principle, which was also recorded in court orders, but later on refused to comply with the same.

"Therefore, we see no rationale much less justification to sustain the Impugned Communication rejecting the grant of maternity benefits in favour of the Petitioner, primarily on the ground that she is a contractual employee and these are policy matters. Even if that being so, it is trite law that policy matters/decisions are to be free from discrimination, manifest arbitrariness so as to fall within the contours of Article 14 of the Constitution of India," the judges held.

Taking note of the objective of the Act, the bench emphasised, "The State is therefore expected to be more sensitive to deserving persons such as the Petitioner. She ought not to be made to seek orders from this Court in cases like the present, where the Respondents had, in principle agreed and accepted to process payment of her maternity benefits. We expect the Respondents not to adopt such an unreasonable approach, going forward, as the one in the given case. We conclude with this earnest and solemn hope."

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.

Appearance:

Advocates Subit Chakrabarti, Chaitrika Patki, Khushnumah Banerjee and Aashka Vora instructed by Vidhii Partners appeared for the Petitioner.

Advocates Chaitanya Chavan, Rupali Adhate and Komal Punjabi represented the BMC.

Case Title: Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Writ Petition 483 of 2025)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 97

Click Here To Read/Download