Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Criticizing the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal and the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur for denying maternity benefit to an Office Assistant, the Madras High Court has held that when there was no dispute regarding the marriage, the employer should not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt for granting the maternity benefit. “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 held. The bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan held that the action of the Magistrate was wholly unwarranted and inhumane. The bench added that when prima facie evidence was available, the Magistrate seemed to have fished for reasons and rejected the maternity leave application. Thus, the court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to pay Rs. 1,00,000 to the woman for the mental agony suffered by her due to the respondents' actions. “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 court directed. The order was made in a petition filed by B Kavitha, Office Assistant of the Magistrate. Kavitha lost her first husband on January 2020. After this, she fell in love with one Bharathi and married him on April 28, 2024. When Kavitha applied for a maternity leave on October 18, 2024, her application was rejected on mainly three grounds. Firstly, that the marriage was not registered. Secondly, that an FIR lodged against Bharathi for cheating on false promise of marriage could not be treated as proof of marriage and third that the pregnancy was prior to the marriage. Claiming that maternity leave could be claimed only by a married woman, the Magistrate dismissed the petition. The High Court was not inclined to accept this view. Though the court agreed that maternity leave is granted only to married women, it added that the employer could not seek proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the court noted that the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Bharathi accusing him of having relationship with her on the false promise of marriage which resulted in her pregnancy. Following this, at the instance of family and well-wishers, the couple got married and photos and invitation of the same was also produced. The court noted that the Magistrate should have acted based on the material but had instead gone on to doubt the fact of pregnancy. Adding that it was time for judicial officers to reform themselves and take a pragmatic view, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the Principal District Judge to grant maternity leave as per entitlement and to treat any leave taken by her as maternity leave.Finding it a fit case where the petitioner must be "compensated for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unjust return of her application", the court directed the respondent-Registrar General of Madras High Court, to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner within 4 weeks. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. Shivakumar Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. N. K. Kanthimathi Case Title: B Kavitha v. The Registrar General Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 116 Case No: W.P.No.6195 of 2025Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Orders Payment Of ₹1 Lakh Cost To Office Assistant Who Was Denied Maternity Leave By Magistrate, Calls It "Inhuman"

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers