Madras High Court Affirms Family Rights for Queer Couples Amid Same-Sex Marriage Debate
Court Ruling on Family Definition
The Madras High Court has stated that although the Supreme Court has not legalized same-sex marriage, it recognizes that queer couples can indeed form a family.
In a ruling dated May 22, Justices GR Swaminiathan and V Lakshminarayanan emphasized that the term 'family' should be interpreted broadly.
They noted, “Marriage is not the only way to establish a family.” The court acknowledged the concept of a 'chosen family' as an established principle within LGBTQIA+ legal discussions, affirming that the petitioner and the individual in question can certainly be considered a family.
This decision comes in light of a previous ruling by a five-judge Constitution bench in October 2023, which stated that the matter of legalizing same-sex marriages should be addressed by Parliament, asserting that there is no fundamental right to marriage.
Earlier in January, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its October ruling.
The High Court's comments arose during a case where it prohibited the family of a lesbian woman from interfering in her personal choices and unlawfully detaining her.
The case was initiated by the partner of a 25-year-old woman who had been separated from her due to alleged coercion by her family.
The petitioner sought the court's intervention after claiming that the police had refused to assist them.
During the proceedings, the mother of the detained woman accused the petitioner of corrupting her daughter and claimed she was struggling with drug addiction, asserting that her daughter needed counseling and rehabilitation.
The court dismissed these allegations, stating, “It would be unjust to label her [the detenue] as an addict.” The court highlighted that the woman expressed her desire to be with her partner and confirmed that she was being held against her will by her family, who had reportedly taken her home by force and subjected her to physical abuse.
Additionally, the court noted that the detenue's family had compelled her to undergo certain rituals aimed at 'normalizing' her.
The bench criticized the police for their lack of action and insensitivity, despite having received a complaint from the petitioner.