AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule Returnable after six weeks for disposal.
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed on record a Division Bench Judgment dated 22nd July 2015 of this Court (Coram: Smt. Vasanti A.Naik & A.M. Badar, JJ) in Writ Petition No. 3288 of 2015 (Dr.MRS HEMA VIJAY MENON VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS) whereby it is specifically observed in paragraph 7 as under :
"7. A woman cannot be discriminated as far as maternity benefits are concerned, only on the ground that she has obtained the baby through surrogacy. Though the petitioner did not give birth to the child, the child was placed in the secured hands of the petitioner as soon as it was born. A newly born child cannot be left at the mercy of others. A maternity leave to the commissioning mother like the petitioner would be necessary. A newly born child needs rearing and that is the most crucial period during which the child requires the care and attention of his mother. There is a tremendous amount of learning that takes place in the first year of the baby''s life the baby learns a lot too,. Also the bond of affection has to be developed. A mother, as already stated herein above would include a commissioning mother or a mother securing a child through surrogacy. Any other interpretation would result in frustrating the object of providing maternity leave to a mother who has begotten the child."
Having considered even Rule 551 (C) and (E) of Child Adoption Leave and Rules, we find that a case is made out for grant of interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) as there is nothing in Rule 551 (C) and (E) as referred above, which would dis-entitle maternity leave to a women who has attained motherhood through surrogacy procedure.
Stand over to 11th March 2016 for disposal.
Parties to act on the basis of the authenticated copy of this order.