Deepika Singh v. CAT
“Redefining Family: Step-Children and the Right to Maternity Leave”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court ruled that step-children do not count towards the "two surviving children" limit for maternity leave under government service rules. A woman who married a widower with two children is entitled to maternity leave for her biological child. The Court recognized that families take many forms and the law must evolve to protect all of them.
The Bottom Line
If you marry someone who already has children, those step-children don't count against your maternity leave eligibility. Your right to maternity leave for your biological child remains intact. Family structures are changing, and the law must keep pace.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
First Wife's Death
Amar Singh's first wife passed away, leaving two children
First Wife's Death
Amar Singh's first wife passed away, leaving two children
Marriage
Deepika Singh married Amar Singh (widower with two children)
Marriage
Deepika Singh married Amar Singh (widower with two children)
Step-Children Added to Records
Deepika's step-children's names added to her service records
Step-Children Added to Records
Deepika's step-children's names added to her service records
Biological Child Born
Deepika gave birth to her first biological child
Biological Child Born
Deepika gave birth to her first biological child
Maternity Leave Application
Applied for maternity leave under Rule 43 CCS Leave Rules
Maternity Leave Application
Applied for maternity leave under Rule 43 CCS Leave Rules
Leave Denied
PGIMER denied maternity leave citing "two surviving children" limit
Leave Denied
PGIMER denied maternity leave citing "two surviving children" limit
CAT Dismissal
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her petition
CAT Dismissal
Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed her petition
High Court Dismissal
Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld CAT decision
High Court Dismissal
Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld CAT decision
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Deepika, granted maternity leave
Supreme Court Judgment
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Deepika, granted maternity leave
The Story
Deepika Singh was working as a Nursing Officer at the Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh. She married Amar Singh on 18th February 2014. Her husband was a widower whose first wife had died on 16th February 2013, leaving behind two surviving children.
In May 2015, Deepika requested that her two step-children's names be entered in her official service record, which was done.
On 4th June 2019, Deepika gave birth to her first biological child. On 6th June 2019, she applied for maternity leave from 27th June 2019 to 23rd December 2019 under Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972.
PGIMER rejected her application, stating that since she already had two "surviving children" (her step-children), she did not qualify for maternity leave under Rule 43, which allows maternity leave only to women with "less than two surviving children."
Deepika challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed her petition on 29th January 2021. The Punjab and Haryana High Court also upheld this decision on 16th March 2021.
Aggrieved, Deepika approached the Supreme Court, arguing that step-children should not be counted for the purpose of maternity leave eligibility.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Step-children are not biological children
Maternity leave is for the biological needs of childbirth. The step-children are not her biological offspring, so they should not count against her eligibility.
Purpose of maternity leave
Maternity leave exists to support women through pregnancy, childbirth, and immediate post-partum recovery. This biological process cannot be affected by existing step-children.
Discrimination
Denying maternity leave to women who marry widowers with children amounts to discrimination based on family circumstances.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Clear language of Rule 43
Rule 43 uses the term "surviving children" without distinguishing between biological and step-children. Once step-children are included in service records, they should count.
Population policy objective
The two-child norm in maternity leave rules is meant to promote small family norms. Including step-children serves this policy objective.
Voluntary inclusion
The appellant herself chose to include step-children in her service records, and must accept the consequences.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court adopted a purposive interpretation of the maternity leave rules, looking at the legislative intent behind granting such leave. The Court recognized that maternity leave is fundamentally linked to the biological process of childbirth and that counting step-children would defeat this purpose.
Maternity leave and child care leave are totally and conceptually as well as legally distinctive. Maternity leave is taken for the biological and physical needs of childbirth, whereas child care leave is linked to taking proper care and fulfilling the needs of the child.
Establishes the conceptual distinction between different types of leave.
The traditional understanding of parental care as restricted to biological children ignores the myriad ways in which individuals come to assume parental-care responsibilities—either by choice or circumstance.
Recognizes diverse family structures.
Guardians and caretakers of children, who often occupy the roles of "mother" and "father", may change with remarriage, adoption, or fostering.
Acknowledges that parenting extends beyond biological relationships.
The law must evolve to recognize that families take many forms. Society no longer defines family only as the nuclear heterosexual unit of mother, father, and children.
Progressive statement on evolving family structures.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
Deepika Singh was granted maternity leave under Rule 43, and all consequential benefits were ordered to be released within two months.
Directions Issued
- Step-children shall not count towards the "two surviving children" limit for maternity leave under Rule 43
- Maternity leave is conceptually distinct from child care leave
- The appellant is entitled to maternity leave for her biological child
- Benefits admissible to the appellant to be released within two months
Key Legal Principles Established
Step-children do not count towards the "two surviving children" limit for maternity leave eligibility.
Maternity leave is conceptually and legally distinct from child care leave.
Maternity leave is for the biological and physical needs of childbirth.
The law must recognize that families take many forms—remarriage, adoption, fostering, etc.
Traditional notions of family as only biological relationships are outdated.
Welfare legislation must be interpreted purposively to achieve its intended objectives.
Women should not be penalized for marrying widowers or divorced persons with children.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you marry someone who already has children, those step-children won't affect your maternity leave eligibility.
- Your right to maternity leave for your biological child is protected regardless of your family structure.
- Maternity leave is for your biological needs during pregnancy and childbirth—not about total family size.
- The law now recognizes diverse family structures including remarriage and blended families.
- Child care leave is different from maternity leave and serves a different purpose.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Article 21
Constitution of India
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
Relevance: Right to live with dignity includes protection of family life and reproductive rights.
Article 14
Constitution of India
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”
Relevance: Women should not face discrimination based on family circumstances.
Statutory Provisions
Rule 43
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
“Maternity leave on full pay may be granted to a female Government servant (with less than two surviving children) for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement.”
Relevance: Core provision at issue—Court interpreted "surviving children" to mean biological children only.
Rule 43-C
Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 1972
“Provisions relating to Child Care Leave for female Government servants.”
Relevance: Distinguished from maternity leave as serving different purpose.
Related Cases & Precedents
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers
cited(2000) 3 SCC 224
Landmark case on maternity benefits for women workers, emphasizing the constitutional mandate to protect working women.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India
cited(2018) 10 SCC 1
Decriminalized homosexuality and discussed evolving understanding of relationships and family.
K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India
cited(2017) 10 SCC 1
Right to privacy includes decisional autonomy regarding intimate personal choices and family life.
NALSA v. Union of India
cited(2014) 5 SCC 438
Recognized rights of transgender persons and discussed evolving understanding of gender and identity.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana
2025 INSC 162
The Case That Made Silence During Arrest Unconstitutional
Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala
2024 INSC 625
When Criticism of a Public Figure Doesn't Become a Caste Atrocity
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Just Rights for Children v. S. Harish
2024 INSC 714
Watching Child Pornography is NOT Just "Moral Decay" — It's a Serious Crime
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.