The Crossbill Team
In a significant ruling reinforcing LGBTQIA+ rights, the Madras High Court has declared that marriage is not the only foundation for a family and recognised the legitimacy of “chosen families” within queer jurisprudence.
The observation came while granting relief to a 25-year-old woman who had been allegedly detained by her family against her will for being in a same-sex relationship.
A division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman’s partner, seeking her release from unlawful confinement by her relatives.
After examining the case, the court ruled that the woman is entitled to live with her partner and cannot be held against her will.
“We have come to the conclusion that the detenue is entitled to go with the petitioner (female partner) and that she cannot be detained against her will by her family members,” the bench stated, as reported by The New Indian Express.
The court also barred the woman’s family members from interfering in her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus, directing the jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple whenever necessary.
The court underscored the broader constitutional principle that “marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,” noting that the idea of a chosen family is now an established part of LGBTQIA+ legal discourse.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India case, the bench stated that although the apex court did not legalise same-sex marriage, it did affirm the right of same-sex couples to form a family.
The judgment also pulled up the police departments in Gudiyatham (Vellore district), Reddiyarpalayam (Puducherry), and Jeevan Beema Nagar (Karnataka) for failing to respond promptly to the petitioner’s appeals for help.
The bench criticised law enforcement for compelling the woman to return to her parents despite her being a legal adult.
Addressing the family’s objections, the court rejected the mother’s claim that the petitioner had “led her daughter astray” and turned her into a “drug addict.”
The bench observed that although the petitioner had only referred to herself as a “close friend” in the petition, it was understandable given prevailing social conservatism.
“We can understand the hesitation on her part. Our society is still conservative, notwithstanding (the judgment in) NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar,” the bench said
The court said it had made unsuccessful efforts to convey to the mother that her daughter, as an adult, has the right to make her own life choices, emphasising that both the law and legal precedents on the matter are unequivocal.
The observation came while granting relief to a 25-year-old woman who had been allegedly detained by her family against her will for being in a same-sex relationship.
A division bench comprising Justices G.R. Swaminathan and V. Lakshminarayanan was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman’s partner, seeking her release from unlawful confinement by her relatives.
After examining the case, the court ruled that the woman is entitled to live with her partner and cannot be held against her will.
“We have come to the conclusion that the detenue is entitled to go with the petitioner (female partner) and that she cannot be detained against her will by her family members,” the bench stated, as reported by The New Indian Express.
The court also barred the woman’s family members from interfering in her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus, directing the jurisdictional police to provide protection to the couple whenever necessary.
The court underscored the broader constitutional principle that “marriage is not the sole mode to found a family,” noting that the idea of a chosen family is now an established part of LGBTQIA+ legal discourse.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union of India case, the bench stated that although the apex court did not legalise same-sex marriage, it did affirm the right of same-sex couples to form a family.
The judgment also pulled up the police departments in Gudiyatham (Vellore district), Reddiyarpalayam (Puducherry), and Jeevan Beema Nagar (Karnataka) for failing to respond promptly to the petitioner’s appeals for help.
The bench criticised law enforcement for compelling the woman to return to her parents despite her being a legal adult.
Addressing the family’s objections, the court rejected the mother’s claim that the petitioner had “led her daughter astray” and turned her into a “drug addict.”
The bench observed that although the petitioner had only referred to herself as a “close friend” in the petition, it was understandable given prevailing social conservatism.
“We can understand the hesitation on her part. Our society is still conservative, notwithstanding (the judgment in) NALSA and Navtej Singh Johar,” the bench said
The court said it had made unsuccessful efforts to convey to the mother that her daughter, as an adult, has the right to make her own life choices, emphasising that both the law and legal precedents on the matter are unequivocal.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment