Case Summary: B. Kavitha v. The Registrar General & Ors. (2025) | Right to Maternity Leave

The case of B. Kavitha v. The Registrar General & Others (2025) decided by the Madras High Court marks a significant development in the discourse surrounding women’s reproductive rights, employment entitlements, and judicial empathy. 

Facts

The petitioner, B. Kavitha, was employed as an Office Assistant in the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Kodavasal, Thiruvarur District. She was a widow, having lost her husband on 28.01.2020. Subsequently, she entered into a relationship with Mr. Bharathi, the son of Tamilmaran, which culminated in a temple marriage on 28.04.2024.

Upon conceiving a child, the petitioner applied for maternity leave on 18.10.2024. However, her request was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate (Respondent No. 3) through an order dated 07.11.2024, primarily on the following grounds:

• The petitioner had not produced a registered marriage certificate;
• A First Information Report (FIR) lodged earlier by the petitioner could not be treated as evidence of marriage;
• The timing of the pregnancy suggested that it might have occurred before the marriage, thereby questioning the legitimacy of the claim;
• Reliance was placed on G.O.(Ms) No. 84, which allegedly limits maternity benefits to married women.

Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order and direct the respondents to grant her maternity leave.

Issues 

• Whether a registered marriage certificate is mandatory for availing maternity leave under government service rules.
• Whether an unregistered temple marriage, corroborated by photographs and invitations, is sufficient proof of marital status.
• Whether pregnancy prior to marriage disentitles a woman from maternity leave.
• Whether the conduct of the judicial officers in rejecting the petitioner’s claim reflects a regressive and unconstitutional approach.

Submissions by the Parties

Petitioner's Counsel (Mr. K. Shivakumar)

• The petitioner, though a widow, solemnized her marriage in a temple ceremony, which is a legally valid form of marriage under Hindu law.
• Due to social stigma and practical challenges, the marriage was not registered, but photographs and wedding invitations were submitted.
• The petitioner had earlier filed a police complaint accusing Mr. Bharathi of cheating her on the promise of marriage, which led to the FIR.
• The rejection of maternity leave solely for the absence of a marriage certificate is illegal and arbitrary, especially when live-in relationships are increasingly accorded legal recognition.

Respondents’ Counsel (Ms. N. K. Kanthimathi)

Defended the impugned order and reiterated that proof of marriage was necessary as per G.O.(Ms) No. 84, which increased maternity leave duration from 270 days to 365 days for married women only.

Argued that the timing of pregnancy raised doubts about the legitimacy of the marriage and that the FIR cannot be construed as valid proof of marital status.

Findings of the Court

1. On Validity of Unregistered Marriage

The Court emphasized that registration of marriage is not a mandatory precondition for its legal validity. Especially in personal laws such as Hindu Marriage Act, a ceremonial marriage solemnized in a temple with traditional rites is considered valid.

The Court categorically held:

"The employer cannot seek proof beyond doubt for the factum of marriage unless it is disputed."

The photographs, the wedding invitation, and the uncontested claim of the petitioner regarding the temple wedding constituted sufficient prima facie evidence to prove the marriage.

2. On Rejection Based on FIR and Pregnancy Timeline

The Court found that the FIR filed by the petitioner in March 2024 and subsequent marriage in April 2024 established a plausible and coherent narrative of events: the petitioner became pregnant due to her relationship with Bharathi, who subsequently married her.

The Court observed:

"The learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate has even gone to the extent of doubting the factum of pregnancy... This, in our opinion, is wholly unwarranted."

The Court held that rejecting maternity leave based on moralistic assumptions about the timing of pregnancy amounted to inhuman treatment and violated the petitioner’s dignity and rights.

3. On Misapplication of G.O.(Ms) No. 84

The Court clarified that G.O.(Ms) No. 84 merely extended the duration of maternity leave and does not override the Fundamental Rules (FRs) governing leave entitlements. The order did not impose any new requirement for marriage registration.

The judges noted:

"The reliance placed on G.O.(Ms) No.84 is also ill-conceived."

4. On Conduct of the Judicial Officers

In a strongly worded rebuke, the Court criticized both the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate and the Principal District Judge for their regressive mindset and failure to show empathy.

The order stated:

"The action of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, to say the least, is inhuman... The learned Magistrate erred grievously in rejecting the application for maternity leave on assumptions and surmises."

And further:

"It is high time, the Judicial Officers reform themselves and take a pragmatic view of things."

Final Decision of the Court

1. The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 rejecting the petitioner’s maternity leave was set aside.
2. The Principal District Judge, Thiruvarur, was directed to sanction maternity leave to the petitioner as per her entitlement.
3. Any leave taken by the petitioner since the date of her application was to be treated as maternity leave, and she was to be paid full salary for that period.
4. The Registrar General was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the mental agony and distress caused by the denial of leave.
5. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all Principal District Judges with instructions to sensitize Judicial Officers and prevent similar instances in the future.

Significance and Implications

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the interpretation of maternity leave policies, particularly concerning:

• The recognition of unregistered marriages, especially among marginalized women such as widows.
• The irrelevance of moral policing in administrative decisions related to women’s rights.
• The importance of a progressive and empathetic approach by judicial officers and public employers.
• A clear affirmation that government employees cannot be denied benefits due to the absence of a formal marriage certificate if other proof is present.
• A judicial warning against regressive, patriarchal mindsets in legal administration.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s judgment in W.P. No. 6195 of 2025 is a progressive, empathetic, and constitutionally sound ruling that affirms the fundamental rights of working women, especially in cases involving unconventional or socially marginalized marital statuses. It also reasserts the judiciary’s role as a protector of dignity, equity, and constitutional morality.

By awarding compensation for emotional distress and mandating administrative reform, the Court has set a compelling precedent for gender justice and humane governance.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment