Latest news with #GRSwaminathan
India Today
a day ago
- Politics
- India Today
Madras High Court says same-sex couples can form family without marriage
The Madras High Court held that same-sex couples can indeed form a family, even though same-sex marriages are yet to be legally recognised in court made this observation while allowing a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman seeking the release of her 25-year-old partner, who had been forcibly detained by her birth family.A division bench of Justices GR Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan ruled in favour of the couple, asserting that 'marriage is not the sole mode to found a family.'advertisement 'To a specific question from us, the detenue replied that she is a lesbian and in a relationship with the writ petitioner,' the court noted. The woman stated she had been beaten and subjected to rituals aimed at making her 'normal.' She expressed fear for her life and told the court she wished to be with the the petitioner had described herself merely as a 'close friend' in her police complaint, the court said it understood the hesitation, acknowledging that same-sex relationships still face societal bench cited the Supreme Court's rulings in NALSA and Navtej Johar, affirming that sexual orientation is a matter of personal autonomy and dignity protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also referenced a previous ruling by Justice Anand Venkatesh in Prasanna J vs. S Sushma, where a 'Deed of Familial Association' between LGBTQIA+ partners was approved, recognising civil concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence,' the bench observed. 'The petitioner and the detenue can very well constitute a family.'The court ordered the immediate release of the woman, restrained her birth family from interfering in her personal liberty, and directed the police to provide protection to both women as and when required.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
"Same-Sex Couple Can Very Well Form A Family": Madras High Court
Chennai: Though the Supreme Court may not have legalised marriage between 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," the court said. 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. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Same sex couples can constitute a family: Madras High Court
Though the Supreme Court may not have legalised marriage between 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 )
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Madras High Court affirms LGBTQIA+ rights amid same-sex marriage rulings
The Madras High Court affirmed that LGBTQIA+ individuals can form families through alternative means, recognizing "chosen families." This ruling came as the court ordered the release of a lesbian woman forcibly separated from her partner, criticizing the police's insensitive handling of the case and emphasizing the right to choose one's path. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads The Madras High Court has ruled that while the Supreme Court has not legalized same-sex marriage , individuals within the LGBTQIA+ community can still form families through alternative means. The court emphasized that 'marriage is not the sole mode to find a family' and recognized the concept of a 'chosen family' as established within LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.A division bench comprising Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made these observations on May 22 while ordering the release of a 25-year-old lesbian woman who had been forcibly separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her judges noted that not all parents are accepting, contrasting the detenue's mother unfavorably with Justice Leila Seth, who had publicly acknowledged and accepted her son's sexual orientation. 'The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We understand her desire for her daughter to live a conventional heterosexual life, marry, and settle down. However, as an adult, the detenue is entitled to choose her own path,' the bench court also expressed discomfort with the term 'queer,' highlighting its dictionary definitions as 'strange' or 'odd' and questioned its appropriateness. 'For a homosexual individual, their sexual orientation is natural and normal. There is nothing strange about such inclinations. Why then should they be labeled queer?' the judges court criticized the local police for their insensitive handling of the case, particularly for compelling the detenue to return to her parents despite her wishes. The bench censured the police's 'rank inaction' and insensitivity, underscoring that government officials, especially police, have a duty to respond promptly and appropriately to complaints from LGBTQIA+ safeguard the detenue's rights, the court restrained her family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus directing the jurisdictional police to provide adequate protection to both the detenue and her partner, who had filed the habeas corpus petition.(With inputs from TOI)
Time of India
2 days ago
- General
- Time of India
LGBTQIA+ couples have right to find a family: Madras high court
Madras high court CHENNAI: Though Supreme Court has not legalised same-sex marriage, individuals can still form a family, Madras high court has said, adding: 'Marriage is not the sole mode to find a family. The concept of a 'chosen family' is now well settled and acknowledged in LGBTQIA+ jurisprudence.' A division bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan made the observation on May 22, while setting at liberty a 25-year-old lesbian woman, who was forcefully separated from her partner and subjected to harassment by her family. 'Not every parent is like Justice Leila Seth. She could acknowledge and accept her son's sexual orientation,' the judges said. 'The mother of the detenue is no Leila Seth. We could understand her feelings and temperament. She wants her daughter to be like any other normal, heterosexual woman, get married and settle down in life. We endeavoured in vain to impress upon her that her daughter, being an adult, is entitled to choose a life of her own,' they added. Also, deprecating the use of the word 'queer' to identify non-heterosexual individuals, the judges said: 'We feel a certain discomfort in employing the expression 'queer'. Any standard dictionary defines this word as meaning strange or odd. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 가상화폐 3개이상 가지고 있다면 '이렇게'해라 크립토시그널 더 알아보기 Queering one's pitch means spoiling the show.' '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 queer?' they asked. The court further placed on record that the jurisdictional police behaved in an insensitive manner in the issue by forcing the detenue to go with her parents. 'We censure the rank inaction on the part of police and the insensitivity shown by them. We hold that govt officials, in particular the jurisdictional police, have a duty to expeditiously and appropriately respond whenever complaints of this nature are received from the members of the LGBTQIA+ community,' the court said. The court then restrained the detenue's family members from interfering with her personal liberty and issued a writ of continuing mandamus to the jurisdictional police to afford adequate protection to the detenue and her partner who moved the habeas corpus petition.
