Review: Madras HC Rules that Maternity Leave During Compulsory Service Must Count Towards Bond Period for Doctors
In this edition of Court Judgements review, we look at the Karnataka HC order that communities may celebrate festivals peacefully, but cannot force others to follow traditions they object to, Madras HC order that maternity leave during compulsory service must count towards bond period for doctors, among others.
Bombay HC: Just because the wife is earning, she should not be deprived of support from her husband to maintain the standard of living she had in the marital home
The case, X vs. Y, concerned a writ petition filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order that directed him to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife. The couple, married in November 2012, had been living separately since May 2015. The husband filed for divorce in 2019, after which the wife sought interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In August 2023, the Family Court at Bandra granted her monthly maintenance pending the final outcome of the divorce petition.
The husband argued that the wife had a monthly income of Rs. 40,000 from her employment as an assistant teacher, income from tuition classes and interest on fixed deposits. He contended that his own net income was Rs. 57,935 and that he had monthly expenses of Rs. 54,000, including care for his elderly parents. He claimed he could not afford the maintenance ordered.
The wife countered that her actual take-home salary was less than Rs. 20,000, much of which was spent on daily commute and basic needs. She added that she lived with her brother’s family as her income was not sufficient to afford rent. She also accused the husband of suppressing facts, pointing to his salary slips from 2022 and 2024 that showed income exceeding Rs. 1.17 lakh per month. The court noted that his father received a pension of Rs. 28,000 and was not financially dependent on him.
Justice Manjusha Deshpande of the Bombay High Court found that the husband had not disclosed his true income and that the wife’s earnings were insufficient to maintain a standard of living similar to what she had during the marriage. Citing settled law, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Rs. 15,000 monthly maintenance awarded by the Family Court.
Karnataka HC: Communities may celebrate festivals peacefully, but cannot force others to follow traditions they object to
The writ petition filed by a representative organisation of the Madiga community under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arose in the context of Muharram festivities held in Tumkur village, Yadgiri district, where a Hindu deity named Kashimalli is traditionally worshipped during the Muslim festival by both communities. Celebrations also include a folk dance performed in front of the village temple.
The petitioner stated that members of the Madiga community, historically Dalits, were compelled to beat the halige (a percussion instrument) during the festival as part of a discriminatory practice rooted in untouchability. Though they ceased playing the instrument, they continued participating in the festivities. However, tensions escalated, leading to communal clashes between upper-caste Hindus and the Madiga community. The petitioner sought a ban on public festivities to avoid further conflict. The State submitted an affidavit stating that holding the festivities may not be advisable given the prevailing situation.
Justice M I Arun of the Karnataka High Court noted that while communal harmony, especially in Hyderabad-Karnataka areas like Yadgiri, should be encouraged, it cannot come at the cost of social dignity or law and order. It emphasised that while communities have the right to celebrate festivals peacefully, no group can force another to perform acts they find objectionable, even if done traditionally. The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities to consider the petitioner’s representation, hear all stakeholders involved, and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that if festivities proceed, the Madiga community cannot be compelled to beat the halige, and the State must ensure their protection.
Madras HC: Mentally disabled dependents are entitled to family pension without delay
A V Jerald, a mentally disabled son of a retired forest officer, became eligible for family pension after the death of his mother in 2016. Despite repeated representations by his elder brother, the authorities failed to act, prompting a writ petition in January 2025. The High Court allowed it, and the department complied, but filed an appeal, Principal Accountant General (A&E) vs. A V Jerald and Others, seeking to expunge certain judicial remarks. The state did not dispute Jerald’s entitlement but objected to the tone of the earlier judgment.
Meanwhile, the court took note of a similar pending case involving a disabled daughter of a former Acting High Court Judge, whose pension claim remained unresolved despite all required documents being submitted. Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar of the Madras High Court emphasised that under Rule 54(6) of the CCS Pension Rules and Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, mentally disabled children are entitled to lifelong family pension. It clarified that only a medical certificate is needed to establish eligibility, not an income certificate. Authorities were criticised for delay and non-compliance. The Court upheld the pension rights of mentally disabled dependents and also called for the swift disbursal of the ex-Judge’s daughter’s pending pension claim. Remarks against the department were expunged in light of subsequent compliance.
Andhra Pradesh HC: trans woman in a heterosexual marriage has protection under Section 498-A IPC
The case originated from a complaint filed by a trans woman, who alleged that she had been subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment by her husband and his family following their marriage in January 2019. The present case, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, is a criminal petition filed by the accused.
According to the complainant, despite her being a trans woman, the accused pursued a romantic relationship with her and eventually married her at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad. She alleged that her family provided dowry in the form of cash, gold, silver, and household articles. However, after a few months of cohabitation, her husband left and later threatened her. She also accused his relatives of attempting to send him abroad and conspiring against her.
The petitioners argued that a trans woman cannot be classified as a “woman” under Section 498-A IPC and therefore, the complaint was not legally maintainable. They also submitted that the allegations were vague, general, and lacked sufficient material to constitute offences under Section 498-A IPC or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa of the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the argument that a trans woman cannot be recognised as a woman under Section 498-A. Relying on landmark judgments, the Court reaffirmed the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender and receive legal recognition. It clarified that a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage has protection under Section 498-A IPC. However, the Court noted that the complaint failed to establish specific acts of cruelty or dowry demands. Therefore, while upholding the legal right of trans women to file complaints under Section 498-A, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as an abuse of process.
Madras HC: Maternity leave during compulsory service must count towards bond period for doctors
The appellant in Dr.E.Krithikaa vs. the State of Tamil Nadu and others completed her MBBS in 2014 and joined an MS (General Surgery) course in 2016, signing a bond to serve the Tamil Nadu Government for two years after completing her postgraduate degree. She also submitted her original certificates as per the bond conditions. After obtaining her degree, she was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in a government hospital and served for 12 months before going on maternity leave. Since she did not complete the full 24 months of bond service, the authorities refused to return her original certificates.
She filed a writ petition seeking the return of her certificates, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that she had not completed the required service. Challenging this, she filed a writ of appeal.
The bench of GR Swaminathan and Justice K Rajasekar of the Madras High Court allowed the appeal, holding that maternity leave must be treated as part of the bond service. It cited the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, which guarantees maternity benefits and bars termination during maternity leave. Relying on the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, the Court emphasised that maternity rights are fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and apply even if the person is not a regular government employee.
The Court concluded that the petitioner must be considered to have served the government during her maternity leave. It set aside the earlier dismissal and directed the authorities to return her original certificates within four weeks.
