'LGBTQ+ couples can make families..marriage not sole basis': Madras HC
What's the story
The Madras High Court recently ruled that while same-sex marriages have yet to be legalized in India, people from the LGBTQIA+ community can still form families.
A bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan said, "Marriage is not the sole mode to find a family," adding that the concept of a "chosen family" is recognized within LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.
The court was hearing a case involving a lesbian couple forcibly separated by one partner's (detenue/detainee) family.
Case details
Petitioner subjected to 'rituals' to make her 'normal'
The detenue's partner (petitioner) had approached the high court after police refused to come to their aid.
She alleged that the police forced her partner to go with her parents, who allegedly beat her and subjected her to certain "rituals" to make her "normal."
The detenue's mother claimed her daughter was a drug addict who had been misled by the petitioner.
The court then spoke with the detainee and refuted her mother's assertion.
Case
'She was forcibly taken to her home and beaten'
"It would be unfair to accuse her (detenue) of any kind of addiction ...She made it clear that she wants 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," the court noted.
The court also noted that the petitioner was hesitant to even reveal her relationship with the detenue.
Terminology
Court's take on term 'queer'
The court also expressed discomfort with the term "queer" to describe LGBTQIA+ individuals.
It said, "To a homosexual individual, his/her/their sexual orientation must be perfectly natural and normal. There is nothing strange or odd about such inclinations. Why then should they be called as queer?"
The court eventually ruled that the detenue can reunite with her partner and cannot be detained by her family against her will.
Government's duty
What the court ordered
The court emphasized the duty of government officials, particularly the police, to respond expeditiously and appropriately to complaints from the LGBTQIA+ community.
It restrained the detenue's natal family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police for adequate protection.
Advocate MA Mumtaj Surya represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak represented the state.