Hello and welcome to Mind the Gap, a newsletter that looks at the weekâs gender developments. The need to broaden what defines the Indian family got some judicial love this week. But are we ready as a society to consider a more inclusive family? Read onâŚ
THE BIG STORY: Modern family
Same-sex couples and unmarried partners are
entitled to legal protections
and all the benefits available under social welfare legislation, noted a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna said family can also take the form of âdomestic, unmarried partnerships, or queer relationshipsâ while hearing a case on maternity leave benefits.
It was while hearing this case that the judges noted, âAtypical manifestations of the family unit are equally deserving not only of protection under the law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation.â
Later in the week,
speaking at a public event
Justice Chandrachud spoke of how the decriminalisation of homosexuality alone could not guarantee equality, which had to be reflected in the home, workplace and public spaces.
All about loving your family
Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, partners for 8 years (Credit: Yeashu Yuvraj)
Marriage rights would seem to be the next logical step after homosexuality was decriminalised by the Supreme Court in 2018.
The pandemic gave the issue further urgency. For instance, a partner who is not a spouse cannot be considered next-of-kin. That partner does not get a voice in medical treatment and options, including end-of-life decisions. There are no automatic financial rights and protections.
It was this realisation that led Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, mental health professionals and live-in partners for eight years to apply to marry under the Special Marriage Act (SMA) in September 2020. When their request was turned down on the grounds that the act doesnât recognise same-sex marriage, the couple filed a
petition
in the Delhi high court saying the exclusion was âan affront to the principles of equality and dignityâ.
âMarriage⌠confers substantive rights on spouses,â
wrote
Saurabh Kirpal, an openly gay senior advocate whose elevation to the Delhi high court bench has been stuck for years. For instance, a spouse can receive money from a married partner as a gift without tax implications. A live-in partner cannot.
A live-in partner cannot become a member of the Hindu undivided family nor do they get the benefits and protections of a spouse in case a partner dies without a will.
Even something as a routine as opening a bank account jointly with a partner is fraught with obstacles, although on paper there is nothing to stop two unrelated individuals from operating an account.
An unmarried couple, gay or otherwise, cannot jointly adopt children.
All you need is love (+ laws)
When B*, a single, independent woman decided to adopt two children, her family thought she was âbat shit crazyâ, she said.
The arrangement might have been hard to understand for many traditional families. She was, she announced, going to raise her kids with the help of her best friend, a gay man.
Now that the children are home, her family has overcome its initial objection and âloves them to bitsâ. âMy children have their grounding in aunts and uncles. My elder sister who is also single has twins, and all the four children are being brought up together. I always say that I have four children none of whom are from my stomach,â she said.
While her extended family has embraced her children and they spend Diwali and festivals together, obstacles remain.
For instance, the school where her kids study will not recognise her friend without the paperwork that gives him legal status. No parent-teacher meetings, not even an informal cup of coffee to introduce him to the school. Her next challenge: to figure out a way to grant him legal guardianship.
It was a legal obstacle, again -- getting a simple visa to accompany her partner who got posted out of the countryâthat finally led R* to marry her live-in partner. âIt was just easier to get married,â she said.
Words, words
The Supreme Court judgesâ comments, aid advocate Rohin Bhatt are whatâs called an obiter dicta, just an observation that has no legal precedental value.
âThe courts never fail to give us lengthy diatribes on what the law should be, but fail us in several cases when it comes to applying the law as it has laid out,â Bhatt said.
For instance, in May 2021, the Punjab and Haryana high court
refused to entertain
a plea by a live-in couple seeking protection from their relatives on the grounds that it would âdisturb the social fabric of societyâ.
A
study
by news website Article-14 of as many as six rulings in three different courts between April and September 2021 found inconsistency in similar petitions where young people in love have sought the stateâs protection from their own families.
There are several petitions in various courts challenging recent legislation on the grounds that they discriminate against unmarried couples. For instance, said Bhatt, the
Surrogacy Act
excludes unmarried couples and the
Transgender Persons Act
doesnât recognise hijra gharanas as alternative family structures.
And then there are confusing signals from the judges.
This week, a two-judge bench in the Kerala high court
waded into controversy
with its quips about âuse and throw cultureâ while hearing a divorce case. The younger generation would âexpand the word WIFE as âworry invited for everâ substituting the old concept of âwise investment for everâ,â the judges said while bemoaning the rise in live-in relationships.
Also this week, a public interest litigation challenging some provisions of the SMA came up for hearing in the Supreme Court. The court
dismissed the petition
without even hearing it.
(*Names concealed on request)
|