The Bombay High Court granted maternity pay relief to a doctor and emphasised that working women must not be forced to compromise on motherhood. It said, “a woman striving for self-sufficiency should not have to sacrifice her caregiving role.”
The Bombay High Court stressed the importance of ensuring that working women receive the maternity benefits they are entitled to by law, so they are not compelled to sacrifice their caregiving responsibilities while striving for economic independence.
A Division Bench of Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait Sethna made the observation while granting relief to an anaesthesiologist and assistant professor at Seth GS Medical College and KEM Hospital.
The doctor’s claim for maternity benefits had been denied by the BMC-run hospital on the grounds that she was employed on a contractual basis.
Read Also: Maternity Leave for Government Employees| Delhi HC Urges Centre to Review 2-Child Policy
The court has now ordered that the hospital pay the required maternity benefits within a specified timeframe, underlining that the purpose of such benefits is to protect the dignity of motherhood and provide financial support to women who are unable to work.
The court observed,
“In today’s day and age, more and more women are joining the workforce. In this scenario, it is important to ensure that a woman striving for self-sufficiency and economic independence does not have to compromise on her role as a care giver to her child,”
The bench added that the State must be sensitive when considering maternity benefits for deserving individuals like the petitioner.
The High Court remarked,
“She ought not to be made to seek orders from this Court in cases like the present,”
The court quashed an October 21, 2024 communication in which the hospital had refused maternity leave, citing her contractual status.
It directed the BMC and KEM Hospital to extend and pay maternity benefits to the petitioner under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, within six weeks.
The petitioner was initially appointed on a contract in January 2022, with subsequent extensions, the latest being in June 2024, when her term was renewed until June 30, 2025. The 2024 agreement noted that she would not be eligible for holidays or vacations under BMC service rules applicable to permanent employees.
Earlier, On October 7, 2024, she applied for 26 weeks of paid maternity leave; the hospital rejected the request on October 21, 2024, treating the period as a break in service and asserting that contractual employees were not eligible.
She approached the High Court seeking a declaration that her leave should be treated as “sanctioned maternity leave” with statutory benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.
The doctor delivered her child on November 7, 2024, and pursued her claim during the six-month leave. She returned to work on April 7, 2025, requesting assignments that recognized her status as a nursing mother.
However, due to inadequate nursing facilities, lack of breaks and uncertainty about duty hours, she resigned in May, effective April 8, leaving the remaining contract period unserved.
Advocate Subit Chakrabarti, representing the petitioner, argued she had completed the statutory 80 days of work, submitted timely notices under Section 6, and was therefore entitled to maternity benefits.
He contended that denying benefits because she was on contract violated her Article 21 rights and ran counter to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which overrides restrictive contractual terms.
Earlier, On June 23, 2025, the court was told that the BMC had agreed in principle to grant maternity benefits, but no concrete action had followed.
Counsel for BMC, Chaitanya Chavan, maintained that the post was a temporary contractual engagement governed by an agreement that excluded service benefits like maternity leave, and alleged the petitioner had not disclosed her pregnancy when signing the 2024 contract. He argued that service rules limited maternity benefits to regular employees with longer tenure.
Read Also: Delhi HC Rules on Maternity Benefits for Legal Aid Lawyers
The Court found this position to be “ex facie contrary” to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, which makes no exception for contractual staff and overrides inconsistent contract terms.
The bench also observed that the corporation’s reversal from having virtually agreed before the court to pay the benefits to later denying them was difficult to fathom.
Advocate Subit Chakrabarti was assisted by Advocates Chaitrika Patki, Khushnumah Banerjee and Aashka Vora, briefed by Vidhii Partners for Karkhanis.
Representing BMC were Chaitanya Chavan, `Rupali Adhate and Komal Punjabi. Additional government pleader Himnashu Takke and Manish Upadhye represented the State.
Case Title: Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis v. BMC & Ors.