Same sex couples can constitute a family: Madras High Court
same sex couples
, they can very well form a family, the
Madras High Court
has held and allowed a young woman to join her female partner and said the two women can constitute a family.
A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said the expression "family" has to be understood in an expanded sense. Hearing a writ petition seeking to produce before court a 25-year old woman and set her at liberty, the bench said: "To a specific question from us, the detenue (the 25-year old woman) replied that she is a lesbian and in relationship with the writ petitioner."
She made it clear to the court that she wanted to go with the petitioner. She confirmed the allegation that she is being detained against her will by her natal family.
"It appeared that she was forcibly taken to her home and beaten. She told us that her natal family members forced her to undergo certain rituals so that she will become "normal". She even apprehended danger to her life."
In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has nowhere described the true nature of her relationship with the detenue." Even in her complaint to the police, the petitioner called herself as the detenue's close friend. We can understand the hesitation on her part."
Live Events
Further, the court said: "While Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty Vs Union of India (Supreme Court) may not have legalised marriage between same sex couples, they can very well form a family. Marriage is not the sole mode to found a family."
The concept of "chosen family" is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence, the court said adding the petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.
Justice Anand Venkatesh, Judge of Madras HC, in Prasanna J Vs S Sushma approved a "Deed of familial Association" that purported to recognise the civil union entered into between LGBTQAI+ partners.
The Supreme Court, in NALSA and Navtej Johar case, declared that sexual orientation is a matter of individual choice and that it is one of the most basic aspects of self-determination, dignity and freedom. It is an integral part of personal autonomy and self-expression and falls within the realm of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The High Court, in its judgment dated May 22, 2025 said: "Since we have satisfied ourselves that the detenue wants to join the petitioner and that she is being detained against her will, we allow this Habeas Corpus petition and set her at liberty. We also restrain the detenue's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty."
Also, the court directed the police to provide protection to the detenue as well as the petitioner as and when required.
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Amid Trump administration's crackdown on immigrants, US deports five 'barbaric' criminals to small African nation
The Donald Trump administration deported five men convicted of violent crimes to Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom, on Tuesday. The deportees – from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen – included murderers and child rapists whose home countries refused to take them back. Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called them 'uniquely barbaric' criminals now 'off American soil'. The flight followed a recent Supreme Court ruling allowing deportations to countries where migrants have no ties. New immigration rules let officials deport people with just 6 hours' notice in emergencies. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) – a nation smaller than New Jersey with 1.2 million people – hasn't explained its agreement to accept the deportees. Ruled by King Mswati III since 1986, it's Africa's last absolute monarchy and bans political parties. Pro-democracy groups protested the secrecy, with SWALIMO spokesperson Ingiphile Dlamini stating: 'There's been no official communication about this deal' . Critics worry the poor country can't safely manage violent criminals and note its history of human rights abuses, including torturing detainees. This marks the second African deportation this month; eight men were sent to war-torn South Sudan earlier. The Trump administration is actively seeking similar deals with Rwanda, Angola, and other African nations. While West African leaders discussed accepting deportees during recent White House visits, Nigeria publicly refused, calling it unacceptable. The U.S. has also sent hundreds of Venezuelans to Central American prisons, but Africa is now a focus for 'third-country' removals. Analysts suggest poor nations may agree in exchange for U.S. aid or trade benefits. UN experts and lawyers argue the policy violates international law by sending people to countries where they risk torture. Justice Sonia Sotomayor previously criticized similar deportations, warning migrants could face torture or death. Under the new rules, U.S. officials aren't required to ask if deportees fear persecution in the third country. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the practice, claiming partner nations will 'take care of them'. However, South Sudan still hasn't revealed the whereabouts of the eight men it received.
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Why the SC has made secretly recorded conversations between spouses in court
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that secretly recorded conversations between spouses are admissible evidence in matrimonial disputes, including divorce proceedings. It set aside a 2021 Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had barred a husband, who sought a divorce, from using secretly recorded phone conversations with his wife as evidence in court. The apex court's ruling changes the contours of spousal or marital privilege in Indian law, which protects private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage, and even after the marriage has ended. Spousal privilege means that a person cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse in a criminal case. It is rooted in the idea that a degree of protection has to be provided to private conversations between a husband and a wife during their marriage. In India, Section 122 of the Evidence Act codifies this. It states: 'No person who is or has been married, shall be compelled to disclose any communication made to him during marriage by any person to whom he is or has been married; nor shall he be permitted to disclose any such communication, unless the person who made it, or his representative-in-interest, consents, except in suits between married persons, or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other.' Spousal communication is allowed as evidence, according to the law, when the other spouse consents or when one spouse has narrated the events to a third party who testifies in a court. Otherwise, even if a spouse accidentally spills the beans, it is struck off the record as inadmissible evidence that the court cannot rely upon. Spousal privilege does not apply directly in divorce cases where one spouse makes allegations against the other spouse and testifies in a court of law. These allegations are supplemented by evidence such as letters, photographs or testimonies of other people. However, with technological advances, text messages, video and voice recordings, emails are often presented as evidence. Many High Courts have refrained from accepting secret recordings as evidence due to two main reasons: The SC's ruling relied on its 1973 judgment in a case, which pertained to a telephonic conversation recorded by the police to prove a bribery charge against a doctor. At the time, the apex court overlooked how the evidence was obtained, given that the case involved corruption by a public servant and the phone tap was by the state. The SC has now effectively extended this reasoning to matrimonial cases. The court has said that if evidence is relevant, independently verifiable, and falls within statutory exceptions, it can be admitted even if collected in secret. It has also been said that secret recordings are a violation of fundamental rights, but the right to privacy has to be balanced with the right to a fair trial. The SC has interpreted Section 122 to mean that while an individual cannot be compelled to testify against their spouse, it is not impermissible to allow evidence to that effect, especially in matrimonial disputes. The ruling says a telephone that secretly records conversations is 'no different from an eavesdropper.' Simply put, the court here is equating digital evidence to a third party who is a witness to a privileged conversation and is testifying. The SC recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in 2017. The current ruling is an example of how the court operationalises this right to privacy. The court, in its interpretation of Section 122, said that the provision was drafted into 'sanctity of the marriage' and not to protect privacy within marriage. This is perhaps true for a law of the Victorian era — the Evidence Act came into force in 1872. But privacy as a is now a fundamental right, which protects the inner sphere of the individual from interference from both state and non-state actors. Any infringement of the right to privacy has to be backed by a valid law. The SC also disagreed with the argument that making secret recordings admissible in court would lead to surveillance within marriage. It said, 'If the marriage has reached a stage where spouses are actively snooping on each other, that is in itself a symptom of a broken relationship and denotes a lack of trust between them.' There is also a concern that the ruling could affect women's right to a fair trial, as there is a huge gender gap in smartphone ownership and access to technology in India. There is a 39% divide in ownership of smartphones by women compared to men in the country, according to the Mobile Gender Gap Report 2025. When evidence can be collected at the click of a button, the party with easier access to such technology naturally gets the upper hand.
Hans India
29 minutes ago
- Hans India
'Operation Muskan' & 'Operation Shodh' launched to trace missing children and women in Maharashtra: CM Fadnavis
Mumbai: Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said on Wednesday that 'Operation Muskan' and 'Operation Shodh' have been launched to search missing children, women and girls in the state, and through these initiatives, a large number of them have been found. Stating that the state government has taken strict steps in the wake of the increasing incidents of women and girls going missing in the state, Chief Minister Fadnavis noted that as per the orders of the Supreme Court, it is now mandatory to register a case immediately if any person goes missing. If small children go missing, a case of kidnapping is registered, he said. He was replying to a query raised by the Leader of Opposition Ambadas Danve and others in the State Council. "Out of the total 5,897 missing cases in Nagpur city, 5,210 persons have been traced, which is more than 90 per cent. This percentage even reaches 96 to 97 per cent. 'Operation Muskan' was implemented for children. Under this campaign, 4,193 boys and girls were traced. The Supreme Court has taken note of this and many states have also adopted this scheme. A separate 'Operation Shodh' was implemented for women. In one month, 4,960 missing women and 1,364 children were traced. Apart from this, 106 women and 703 children were found who were missing despite no complaint being filed," he said. Chief Minister Fadnavis said that orders have been given to set up a 'Missing Cell' in every police station, adding that this cell will be led by a woman police officer. "The Additional Director General rank IPS officers have been appointed for the safety of women. Some women and girls get caught in the trap of human trafficking. Therefore, the government has initiated concrete measures in this regard," he added. He said that efforts are being made to expand rehabilitation institutions for missing women and the elderly in terms of public safety. The aim of the Missing Cell is to follow up on cases of missing persons, he added. "Also, the one-stop centre "Bharosa" provides counselling, protection and legal aid to women. This centre is used by women who have left their homes due to domestic violence and family disputes. At the school level, awareness is created on sex education, good/bad touch under the 'Police Kaka-Didi' initiative. Now, information about 'missing persons' will also be included in this," he said.
