In a significant judgment upholding compassion and dignity, the Madras High Court came down heavily on a Judicial Magistrate who had rejected a maternity leave application solely because the applicant had conceived before formalizing her marriage. Calling the decision “inhuman” and “archaic,” the Court quashed the rejection and awarded ₹1 lakh in compensation for the mental agony caused.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a government employee serving as an Office Assistant at a subordinate court in Thiruvarur district, had earlier lost her husband in 2020. Some years later, she entered into a relationship that led to her conceiving a child. Initially, due to disagreements, she had filed a police complaint alleging deception. However, the couple later got married in a temple ceremony.
In October 2024, she applied for maternity leave, which was rejected by the court administration in November 2024. The reasons cited included the absence of a marriage registration certificate, the fact that the pregnancy predated the marriage, and the belief that the police complaint could not serve as proof of marriage.
Grounds for Rejection
The leave application was turned down on three grounds:
- The marriage was not formally registered.
- The police complaint (FIR) was not considered proof of marriage.
- The applicant had become pregnant before the marriage took place.
The authorities referred to a government order (G.O. Ms No.84), which extends maternity leave duration, arguing that such leave is only available to married women.
Proceedings Before the High Court
The matter was taken to the Madras High Court through a writ petition. The Division Bench comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan heard the case and delivered a strongly worded judgment.
Court’s Observations
The Court noted that requiring formal registration of marriage as a precondition for maternity leave is both legally flawed and administratively harsh.
On marriage registration:
“A marriage need not be compulsorily registered. The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed.”
The Court found that there was enough prima facie evidence including wedding photographs and invitation cards. There was no denial or dispute from the other side regarding the marriage.
On pregnancy before marriage:
“The learned 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 Bench held that such reasoning was not only flawed but also highly insensitive to the realities of human relationships.
On judicial discretion and mindset:
“In the days where even live-in relationships are recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Magistrate appears to have taken an archaic view of the matter and fished for and found out reasons for rejection.”
“It is high time the Judicial Officers reform themselves and take pragmatic view of things.”
Directions and Relief Granted
- The rejection of the maternity leave application was quashed.
- The concerned judicial authority was directed to treat all leave taken since October 18, 2024, as maternity leave with full pay.
- The High Court directed the administrative head of the judiciary to pay ₹1 lakh to the applicant as compensation for the unjust treatment and mental distress.
- The Registry was instructed to circulate the judgment to all Principal District Judges, who are to ensure that all subordinate judicial officers are made aware of the ruling to avoid recurrence of such actions.
