“‘To Say the Least, Inhuman": Madras High Court Slams Judicial Officer for Denying Maternity Leave Over Unregistered Marriage, Awards ₹1 Lakh Compensation
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court has set aside the denial of maternity leave to a woman employed as an Office Assistant in a judicial establishment, holding that the employer cannot demand conclusive proof of marriage where the fact is not disputed. The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed that the petitioner be granted maternity leave in accordance with her entitlement and that any leave availed from the date of her application be regularised as maternity leave with full salary. The Court recorded that “the action of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, to say the least is inhuman.”
The Division Bench further recorded that “it is high time, the Judicial Officers reform themselves and take pragmatic view of things,”
The petitioner, B. Kavitha, employed as an Office Assistant at the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal, Thiruvarur District, sought a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated 07.11.2024, which rejected her maternity leave application on the ground that she had not produced a marriage certificate. The respondents included the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur District, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodavasal, and the Chief Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, Thiruvarur District.
According to the petitioner, she lost her husband on 28.01.2020 and later married one Bharathi, son of Tamilmaran, on 28.04.2024. The marriage was solemnized at a temple and was not registered. She applied for maternity leave on 18.10.2024. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate returned the application for maternity leave, raising three grounds: first, the absence of a registered marriage certificate; second, that an FIR filed by the petitioner could not serve as proof of marriage; and third, that the pregnancy appeared to predate the marriage.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the marriage took place in a temple and the petitioner could not register it due to her status as a young widow. Photographs of the marriage ceremony, a wedding invitation, and records of an earlier complaint filed against Bharathi were placed before the court. The petitioner had lodged an FIR on 14.03.2024 accusing Bharathi of having a relationship with her on the promise of marriage, which resulted in her pregnancy.
The learned counsel for the respondents, referring to G.O.(Ms) No.84, supported the rejection, submitting that maternity leave is admissible only to married women. The respondents also referred to the alleged lack of adequate documentation and the sequence of events concerning the pregnancy and marriage.
The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, also filed a report during the proceedings, contending that there were questions regarding the legitimacy of the petitioner’s claim for maternity leave.
The Bench examined the petitioner’s evidence, including the FIR and the subsequent marriage, and the materials filed in support of the petition. The Court stated that “a marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed.” The Bench noted that no one else had contested the marriage.
Regarding the petitioner’s circumstances, the Court recorded, “in the case on hand, the petitioner had lodged a complaint on 14.03.2024 accusing her husband T. Bharathi, of having a relationship with her on the promise of marriage which resulted in her conceiving a child.” It was also noted that the said Bharathi later married the petitioner at a temple, as supported by photographic evidence and a wedding invitation. The Bench recorded that Bharathi had obtained anticipatory bail after the FIR was filed.
The Bench found fault with the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate for doubting the petitioner’s pregnancy based on the timeline of the conception and the marriage. The Court stated, “the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate has even gone to the extent of doubting the factum of pregnancy on the ground that marriage appears to have been after the pregnancy.” The Court recorded that the petitioner’s specific case was that she conceived following a relationship on the promise of marriage, and that “therefore, the petitioner should not have been denied maternity leave on the said ground.”
Referring to the material before the lower court, the Division Bench stated, “when prima facie evidence is available, the learned Magistrate, in our considered opinion, erred grievously in rejecting the application for maternity leave on assumptions and surmises.”
The Court further recorded, “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.”
The Bench also examined G.O.(Ms) No.84 and recorded that “the effect of the said G.O. is only to increase the number of days of maternity leave from 270 days to 365 days.” The Court clarified that it is the Fundamental Rules that govern the grant of maternity leave and that “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 recorded that the sequence of events — namely, the FIR filed in March 2024 and the subsequent marriage in April 2024 — made the petitioner’s case probable. The Court recorded that “there is nothing to disbelieve the said statement.” The Court observed that the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, in his report, also questioned the legitimacy of the maternity leave claim and followed the reasoning of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate.
The Bench recorded, “we are unable to appreciate the mindset of the employer particularly in this case the Judicial Officers.”
The High Court quashed the order dated 07.11.2024 returning the petitioner’s application for maternity leave. The Court directed, “we direct the Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, to grant the maternity leave as per the entitlement of the petitioner, any leave taken by the petitioner from the date of her application for grant of maternity leave will be treated as maternity leave and she will be paid the full salary for the said period.”
Further, the Court directed, “we also find that this is a fit case where the petitioner should be compensated for the mental agony suffered by her due to the unjust return of her application. We therefore direct the Registrar General, the first respondent to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. A cost shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today.”
The Bench also directed, “we direct the Registry to circulate a copy of this order to all the Principal District Judges with a direction to them to forward the same to all the Judicial Officers so that such cruel orders are not passed by the Judicial Officers in future.”
The matter was posted for compliance after four weeks.
Advocates Representing the Parties
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. K. Shivakumar, Advocate
Advocate for Respondents: Ms. N.K. Kanthimathi, Advocate
Case Title: B. Kavitha vs. The Registrar General and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:720
Case Number: W.P.No.6195 of 2025
Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan
[Read/Download order]
