Stepchildren No Bar to Maternity Leave for a Woman's First Biological Child: Supreme Court on Atypical Families

The appellant, a Nursing Officer at PGIMER Chandigarh, married a widower who had two children from his first marriage; she had their names entered in her service record and later took child care leave for them (paras 3-4). When her first biological child was born in June 2019, PGIMER refused maternity leave under Rule 43, which applies to a woman with less than two surviving children, treating the stepchildren as hers (para 4). The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the refusal (paras 5-8).

Rule 43(1) must receive a purposive construction, as beneficial provisions are construed liberally (paras 15-16). The Maternity Benefit Act, though not applicable to PGIMER, shows Parliament's intent to protect a woman's wages and job when she gives birth (paras 17-20). Article 15(3), the right to reproduction under Article 21 and Article 42 support maternity relief, as do the UDHR and CEDAW (paras 21-22). Maternity leave under Rule 43 and child care leave under Rule 43-C are distinct entitlements (para 23). The husband's two children from his first marriage did not affect her right to maternity leave for her only biological child, and the earlier child care leave may have been a compassionate view (para 24). Unless the rule is read purposively, its object of keeping women in the workplace would be defeated (para 25). Families may be single-parent, blended, unmarried or queer, and such atypical families deserve the protection of the law and its benefits (paras 26-27).