Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently observed that familial relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships.

A division bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna observed the dominant understanding of the concept of a "family," both in law and in society, is that it consists of a single, unchanging unit consisting of a mother and father (who remain constant over time) and their children.

“This assumption ignores both the numerous circumstances that may lead to a change in one's familial structure, as well as the fact that many families do not conform to this expectation in the first place. Domestic, unmarried partnerships and queer relationships are all examples of familial relationships”, the bench stated.

Court further stated that a single-parent household can exist for a variety of reasons, including the death of a spouse, separation, or divorce. “Similarly, the guardians and caretakers of children (who traditionally play the roles of "mother" and "father") may change as a result of remarriage, adoption, or fostering,” the court added.

The bench stressed that these manifestations of love and family may be unusual, but they are just as real as their more-traditional counterparts.

Court said that such atypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving of legal protection as well as the benefits provided by social welfare legislation. “The black letter of the law should not be used to discriminate against non-traditional families. The same is undoubtedly true for women who take on the role of motherhood in ways that may not be represented in popular culture,” it said.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by one Deepika challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court's order. She sought maternity leave after the birth of her first biological child despite the fact that she had availed the leave to take care of her husband’s two children from his previous marriage.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that she had availed of child care leave in respect of her stepchildren, and the same is distinct from maternity leave.

On the contrary, the counsel for respondents argued that the petitioner had taken benefit of the child care leave in respect of the two children born to her spouse from his first marriage, and was not entitled to maternity leave in case of birth of her biological child.

The top court opined that unless a purposive interpretation is used in the present case, the object and intent of granting maternity leave will be defeated.

“The provision of maternity leave under the Rules of 1972 is intended to help women stay in the workforce. It is a harsh reality that, in the absence of such provisions, many women would be forced by social circumstances to give up work after the birth of a child if they are not granted leave and other accommodating measures,” the court stated.

Court added that no employer can perceive childbirth as a detriment to the purpose of employment. Childbirth must be interpreted in the context of employment as a natural occurrence, and thus the provisions for maternity leave must be interpreted in that light.

Further, Court observed that the fact that the petitioner’s spouse had two biological children from his first marriage had no bearing on her right to maternity leave for her sole biological child and the fact that she was granted child care leave for the two biological children born to her spouse from an earlier marriage may indicate that the authorities took a compassionate stance at the time.

Court added that because of gendered roles assigned to women and societal expectations, women are always expected to shoulder a disproportionate amount of childcare work.

“According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) time-use survey, women in India currently spend up to 352 minutes per day on unpaid work, which is 577% more than men. The Unpaid work time includes childcare”, the bench stated.

Court opined that it was essential that the state and other employers must support care work by providing benefits such as maternity leave, paternity leave, or child care leave (availed by both parents).

Furthermore, Court said that although certain provisions of the Rules of 1972 have allowed women to enter the paid workforce, women continue to bear primary responsibility for childcare, and the grant of childcare leave to the petitioner could not be used to disqualify her from maternity leave under Rule 43 of the Rules of 1972.

Conclusively, Court observed that the facts in the present case also indicated that the petitioner’s family structure changed when she became a parent to her spouse's biological children from his previous marriage.

Therefore, while setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court 2021 order, Court observed that when the petitioner applied for maternity leave at the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), the institution faced that the law may not have envisaged or adequately accounted for and when confronted with such situations, and the Apex Court would be wise to try to give effect to the purpose of the law at hand rather than to prevent its application.

Case Title: Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Others