Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. Hema Vijay Menon, a lecturer, lost her only son in 2010. After unsuccessful IVF attempts, she opted for surrogacy. In March 2013, an embryo was transplanted into a surrogate mother, who delivered a baby boy on 4 December 2014. The petitioner applied for maternity leave from 4 December 2014, but the respondents denied it on the ground that she did not deliver the child herself. The court examined whether a mother through surrogacy is entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The court held that the Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting the health of the mother and child. The term 'mother' includes a commissioning mother who has a child through surrogacy. The court directed the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 4 December 2014 with all consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Maternity Benefit - Surrogacy - Entitlement to Maternity Leave - Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 - The court considered whether a mother who has a child through surrogacy is entitled to maternity leave. The court held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted purposively to include a commissioning mother who has a child through surrogacy. The court directed the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from the date of delivery of the child by the surrogate mother. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a mother who begets a child through surrogacy is entitled to avail maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner from 4 December 2014 with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Maternity leave
- surrogacy
- Maternity Benefit Act
- 1961
- beneficial legislation
- purposive interpretation
- mother includes commissioning mother
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 172
WRIT PETITION NO. 3288 OF 2015
Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, A.M. Badar
Shri C.S. Dhore for petitioner, Ms. T. Udeshi for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri A. Bhole for respondent No. 4
Dr. Mrs. Hema Vijay Menon
State of Maharashtra, The Joint Director of Higher Education, State of Maharashtra, The Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, The Principal, Dr. Ambedkar College
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking maternity leave for mother through surrogacy
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents to grant maternity leave from 4 December 2014 with all consequential benefits
Filing Reason
Respondents denied maternity leave to petitioner on ground that she did not deliver the child herself
Issues
Whether a mother who begets a child through surrogacy is entitled to avail maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Maternity Benefit Act is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted purposively to include commissioning mother
Respondents argued that maternity leave is only for women who deliver a child themselves
Ratio Decidendi
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting the health of the mother and child. The term 'mother' includes a commissioning mother who has a child through surrogacy. The Act must be interpreted purposively to achieve its object.
Judgment Excerpts
The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is, whether a mother is entitled to avail maternity leave, though she begets the child through surrogacy.
The Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted purposively to include a commissioning mother who has a child through surrogacy.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the denial of maternity leave by the respondents. The petition was heard finally with consent of counsel and disposed of on 22 July 2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maternity Benefit Act, 1961:
