<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>has asked the central government to clarify the rationale behind a clause in the Maternity Benefit Act, which allowed benefits like 12 weeks maternity leave only to women who adopt children aged less than three months.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal sought to know the idea of saying that a child has to be of three months or less.</p><p>The court sought to know the object of having a provision to grant maternity leave to take care of a child whether it is biological or any kind of mother.</p> .'I congratulate Supreme Court order on bulldozer action': Farooq Abdullah.<p>The court was recently hearing a PIL challenging constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 which entitles maternity period benefits for a period of 12 weeks to only those mothers who are adopting a child below age of 3 months.</p><p>The Centre’s counsel contended before the bench that there is a huge difference between a biological mother and other mothers. </p><p>The bench, however, said that the intent of maternity leave is to allow a mother to care for her child, regardless of whether she is a biological or adoptive mother. </p><p>The court asked the Centre’s counsel to file a better affidavit and fixed the matter for further hearing after four weeks’.</p> .<p>The PIL filed by an adoptive mother, challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act. </p><p>The petitioner argued that the provision was contrary not only to the scheme and object of the Maternity Benefit Act and in particular the 2017 amendment but also in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015.</p> .<p>The plea contended that the provision did not take into consideration the procedure of adoption envisaged in the JJ Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner also submitted that even assuming the child is either orphaned or surrendered at birth, then it is almost impossible for a mother to adopt a child who is less than three months of age.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>has asked the central government to clarify the rationale behind a clause in the Maternity Benefit Act, which allowed benefits like 12 weeks maternity leave only to women who adopt children aged less than three months.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Pankaj Mithal sought to know the idea of saying that a child has to be of three months or less.</p><p>The court sought to know the object of having a provision to grant maternity leave to take care of a child whether it is biological or any kind of mother.</p> .'I congratulate Supreme Court order on bulldozer action': Farooq Abdullah.<p>The court was recently hearing a PIL challenging constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 which entitles maternity period benefits for a period of 12 weeks to only those mothers who are adopting a child below age of 3 months.</p><p>The Centre’s counsel contended before the bench that there is a huge difference between a biological mother and other mothers. </p><p>The bench, however, said that the intent of maternity leave is to allow a mother to care for her child, regardless of whether she is a biological or adoptive mother. </p><p>The court asked the Centre’s counsel to file a better affidavit and fixed the matter for further hearing after four weeks’.</p> .<p>The PIL filed by an adoptive mother, challenged the constitutionality of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act. </p><p>The petitioner argued that the provision was contrary not only to the scheme and object of the Maternity Benefit Act and in particular the 2017 amendment but also in conflict with the letter and spirit of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015.</p> .<p>The plea contended that the provision did not take into consideration the procedure of adoption envisaged in the JJ Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. The petitioner also submitted that even assuming the child is either orphaned or surrendered at birth, then it is almost impossible for a mother to adopt a child who is less than three months of age.</p>