Menstrual leaves, choice of partner: 5 times courts upheld women’s rights, autonomy

The observation came while the court was hearing a matter on May 22 in which a man had allegedly threatened a woman with uploading a video of her bathing on social media. The court held that such conduct amounted to imputing “unchastity” to the woman and upheld his conviction for criminal intimidation.

Paid menstrual leave for KSRTC women conductors

The Kerala High Court recently asked the state government to consider paid menstrual leave for women conductors of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), after three conductors sought two days of paid leave every month. 

The court took into account the realities of their job, including long shifts of eight to 16 hours, prolonged standing, constant movement in crowded buses and inadequate access to hygienic toilets, rest areas and menstrual waste disposal facilities at many depots. 

The judges of the Supreme Court and various high courts have emphasised that women’s choices cannot be overridden merely by social expectations or traditional notions of morality.

It said severe menstrual symptoms can substantially affect a woman’s health, dignity and ability to perform her duties. Calling menstrual leave a “progressive welfare measure”, the court, on July 23, said a limited provision could promote employee welfare, reduce presenteeism, enhance productivity and foster a more inclusive workplace. The court directed the government to consider the conductors’ pending representation within three months.

Can’t be forced to marry against choice

The Uttarakhand High Court highlighted the significance of the choices in the life of an adult woman recently in a case when a  23-year-old woman alleged that her uncle had confined her for two months and was forcing her to marry against her wishes. 

Directing the police to provide adequate security to the woman and the man she wished to marry, the court, on July 15, held that an adult woman cannot be detained by anyone “against her wishes” or “compelled to marry a person against her choice”. 

The court also questioned how an adult woman, who is free to move wherever she wishes, could be detained or prevented from marrying a person of her choice.

Homemaker’s work invaluable

Saying that a homemaker’s contribution cannot be measured simply by assigning a notional salary to household work, the Calcutta High Court affirmed an award of more than Rs 2.10 crore in relation to the death of the family’s sole earning member and enhanced the compensation for his deceased homemaker wife from Rs 9.17 lakh to Rs 11 lakh. 

The court noted that the woman was in the “constant attendance” of her family throughout the day and night, caring for her husband and children, teaching her daughters and guiding them, besides looking after her parents-in-law. 

Calling her contribution “invaluable”, the court, on June 9, said the value of such services had to be understood broadly, including the personal care and attention provided to the family. The judgment recognised that the loss suffered by dependents is not limited to the household work that could theoretically be performed by someone else.

19-year-old’s right to choose where, with whom to live

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on April 2, 2026, allowed a 19-year-old woman to leave with the man of her choice after she clearly told the court that she did not want to return either to her husband or her parents. The court treated her decision as an exercise of personal liberty because she was an adult and had stated that she was not under illegal confinement. It also recognised that respecting her choice did not mean leaving her without support in a difficult situation. 

The court appointed a government advocate and a woman constable as “Shourya Didis” for six months to remain in regular contact with her and monitor her wellbeing. The court balanced two concerns- protecting an adult woman’s right to decide her own life while ensuring that she had support in circumstances where she could potentially face pressure or vulnerability.

Taken together, these recent rulings reflect a judicial approach that increasingly places women’s dignity, autonomy and personal choice at the centre of legal decision-making. Whether it is the right to make decisions about one’s body, recognition of unpaid household work, access to workplace welfare measures or the freedom to choose where and with whom to live, the courts have emphasised that women’s choices cannot be overridden merely by social expectations or traditional notions of morality.