Supreme Court of India Upholds Maternity Leave for Woman with Children from Previous Marriage.
23 May 2025
Maternity benefits >> Family Law
In a significant ruling on May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed the civil appeal in the case of K. Umadevi v/s Government of Tamil Nadu & Others, overturning a Madras High Court Division Bench decision and affirming a woman's right to maternity leave for a child born from a second marriage, even if she has existing children from a previous marriage. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal interpretation of maternity benefit provisions, aligning them with constitutional principles and international human rights.
Background of the Case:
K. Umadevi, an English Teacher in Tamil Nadu government service, married A. Suresh in 2006 and had two children in 2007 and 2011. After their divorce in 2017, the children remained in her former husband's custody. In 2018, she remarried M. Rajkumar and subsequently applied for maternity leave for her child conceived from the second marriage for the period of August 17, 2021, to May 13, 2022.
Her request was denied by the third respondent on August 28, 2021, citing Fundamental Rule (FR) 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu Fundamental Rules, which states that maternity leave is available to women government employees with "less than two surviving children." The rejection stated there was no provision for maternity leave for a third child on account of remarriage.
Journey Through the Courts:
Umadevi challenged this rejection in the Madras High Court. A single judge ruled in her favor on March 25, 2022, holding that the denial was illegal and directed the authorities to sanction maternity leave as per G.O.Ms. No. 84 dated August 23, 2021, which enhanced maternity leave from 9 to 12 months. The single judge emphasized that the Maternity Benefit Act has an overriding effect on inconsistent laws and that "two surviving children" should mean children in the mother's lawful custody, which was not the case here for her previous children.
However, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the single judge's order on September 14, 2022, concluding that Umadevi was not entitled to maternity relief as per the State's policy restricting benefits to two children. The Division Bench also stated that maternity leave is not a fundamental right but a statutory right or one flowing from service conditions.
Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, examined the case in light of constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and international developments.
The Court delved into:
Article 21 of the Constitution: Highlighting its expansive interpretation to include the right to life in its fullest sense, encompassing dignity, health, and privacy.
Article 42 of the Constitution: Which mandates the State to make provisions for "just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief."
International Conventions: The Court referenced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25(2) on motherhood and childhood entitled to special care) , the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 10(2) on special protection for mothers before and after childbirth) , and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (Article 11(2) on eliminating discrimination based on maternity and ensuring maternity leave with pay). The Court noted that India ratified these covenants.
Reproductive Rights: The Supreme Court affirmed that reproductive rights, including the right to make reproductive choices, are a facet of Article 21, citing previous judgments like Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Maternity Benefit Act, 1961: While acknowledging that the Act may not directly apply to state government employees, the Court used it for guidance. It highlighted Section 5, which, after a 2017 amendment, restricts the period of maternity leave to 12 weeks for women with two or more surviving children, but does not impose a cap on the number of children for claiming the benefit itself.
Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal: The Court heavily relied on its own decision in Deepika Singh (2023), where it held that a woman's entitlement to maternity leave for her biological child is not impinged by her spouse having two biological children from a previous marriage. The Court emphasized a purposive and liberal construction of beneficial legislation like maternity leave provisions.
The Verdict:
The Supreme Court found the Division Bench's view unsustainable. It declared that the appellant, K. Umadevi, is entitled to maternity leave under FR 101(a) , noting that her two biological children from the first marriage were not residing with her and that the child from her subsisting marriage was her first child since entering government service. The Court stated that the State's policy on population control and the objective of granting maternity benefits are not mutually exclusive and must be harmonized.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court Division Bench's judgment and directed the release of admissible maternity benefits to K. Umadevi within two months.
Section 5, Maternity Benefit Act - 1961
Section 27, Maternity Benefit Act - 1961