The Bombay High Court has held that the State cannot refuse maternity benefits only because a woman works on contract. The Court said such denial defeats the purpose of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 and forces a working woman to choose between employment and caregiving.
A Division Bench of Justice Riyaz Chagla and Justice Advait Sethna directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to extend and pay maternity leave benefits to a doctor at the civic-run KEM Hospital “at the earliest”.
The Bench said the 1961 law protects the dignity of motherhood. It also ensures financial support during the period a woman cannot work due to pregnancy and childbirth.
The Court noted that more women now join the workforce to achieve economic independence. In that setting, the law must ensure that a woman does not compromise her caregiving role.
Contract Appointment, Maternity Leave Request, And Rejection
The writ petition was filed by Dhanashri Karkhanis. She worked as an Assistant Professor (contractual) in the Department of Anaesthesia at KEM Hospital from January 4, 2022. The BMC extended her engagement from time to time.
On August 12, 2024, she signed an agreement through the Dean of KEM Hospital. The agreement recorded service conditions. It also said she would not get holidays or vacations available to permanent municipal employees.
On August 20, 2024, she submitted a written request for maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. She sought six months’ leave.
However, by an order dated October 21, 2024, the hospital refused to grant maternity benefits. It cited her contractual status.
BMC’s Stand In Court And Later Refusal
When the matter came up in June 2025, the BMC initially agreed to extend benefits under the Act. The Court recorded that position.
Later, the BMC did not process payments. The Court noted this change and questioned the civic body’s refusal.
The Bench said it dealt with a welfare law. It added that courts must read the statute in line with its object. The Act aims to secure maternity benefits for working women.
Article 21, Equality, And Arbitrary Policy
The High Court accepted the doctor’s case. It held that the BMC’s conduct interfered with her Article 21 rights.
The Bench also flagged the BMC’s “volte-face”. It said the civic body first accepted the claim in principle. Then it backed out and did not comply.
The Court rejected the BMC’s defence that the issue involved policy. It said even a policy decision must remain non-discriminatory. It must also avoid manifest arbitrariness under Article 14.
The Bench added that the State must show sensitivity in such cases. It said the doctor should not have had to approach the Court. The respondents had already accepted, in principle, that she deserved maternity benefits.
Directions
The High Court disposed of the petition. It directed the BMC to extend and pay maternity benefits to the petitioner at the earliest.
Case Details
Case Title: Dhanashri Ramesh Karkhanis vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Appearance
For the Petitioner: Advocates Subit Chakrabarti, Chaitrika Patki, Khushnumah Banerjee, and Aashka Vora, instructed by Vidhii Partners.
For the BMC: Advocates Chaitanya Chavan, Rupali Adhate, and Komal Punjabi.
