A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
| Part of the LGBT rights series |
 LGBT portal |
India does not recognise same-sex marriage, civil unions or other forms of partnerships, but provides some limited legal recognition to cohabiting same-sex couples in the form of live-in relationships.[1][2] Several same-sex couples have married in traditional Hindu ceremonies since the late 1980s; however, these marriages are not registered with the state and couples do not enjoy all the same rights and benefits as married opposite-sex couples.[3][4] The Supreme Court of India in August 2022 provided social security rights to those in same-sex live-in relationships while also recognising same-sex couples as being part of a "family unit".[5]
In October 2023, the Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage or civil unions and left the matter up to the Parliament or the state legislatures to decide.[6][7] Despite the legal requirement to register all marriages with the government, the majority of Hindu marriages are not registered with the government and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.[8][9][10]
Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nātā prathā or maitri karar-type contractual relationships.
Live-in relationships
Couples in "live-in relationships" are not married to each other but live together as a cohabiting couple. Live-in relationships tend to be viewed by Indian society as taboo, but have become gradually more common among the younger population in light of the slow decline of arranged marriages. Unlike marriages, live-in relationships are not regulated by law and lack a robust, legally protected system. No law lays down the rights, benefits and commitments for parties in a live-in relationship. However, court judgments and various pieces of legislation offer various rights to such couples. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 grants domestic violence protections to women who live in a "relationship in the nature of marriage". Courts have interpreted this expression as covering live-in relationships. Following amendments in the early 2000s, the term "wife" under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 includes women who have been in live-in relationships for a "sensible period of time" for the purpose of alimony.[11] In 2020, the Orissa High Court ruled in Chinmayee Jena v. State of Odisha that women in live-in relationships are protected under the 2005 domestic violence law similarly to different-sex cohabiting couples.[12]
Since the 2010s, courts in several states, including Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Odisha, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, have ruled on an individual basis that live-in relationships between same-sex couples are not unlawful and entitled to legal protection. This has often only entailed limited inheritance benefits or police protection from family. Courts have also recognised guru–shishya, nātā prathā or maitri karar-type contractual relationships. On 16 August 2022, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Others that familial relationships may take the form of opposite-sex live-in relationships and same-sex relationships, and that such "atypical manifestations" of the family unit are equally deserving of social security benefits.[13][14] In addition, a number of companies provide services to cohabiting same-sex couples, including financial benefits,[15] and health care benefits.[16]
Federal marriage laws
The following acts cover India's marriage laws:
- The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 (ICMA): regulates the marriage and divorce of Indian Christians. An ordained minister of a church or a marriage registrar may conduct marriages under the Act.
- Special Marriage Act, 1954 (SMA): provides a special form of marriage for all Indian citizens regardless of religion. Marriages contracted under this Act are registered with the state as a civil contract. The Act applies to interfaith couples, partners of all religions or with no religious beliefs.[17][18][19][20][21]
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA): regulates marriage, separation and divorce for Hindus according to Hindu custom and rites. The Act also applies to Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists.
- Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: regulates marriage and divorce for Parsis under Zoroastrian rites.
- Anand Marriage Act, 1909: regulates marriage for Sikhs.
- Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: regulates marriage, succession and inheritance for Muslims.
On 1 April 2022, MP Supriya Sule from the Nationalist Congress Party introduced a bill to the Lok Sabha to legalise same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act. The proposal would amend various sections of the Act to provide same-sex couples with the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. The bill would fix the marriageable age at 21 for gay couples and at 18 for lesbian couples.[22][23] No action was taken on the bill.
Uniform Civil Code
In 2017, a draft of a uniform civil code to legalise same-sex marriage was proposed by a group of citizens.[24] Under the proposed code, marriage was defined as "the legal union as prescribed under this Act of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". A partnership was similarly defined as the "living together of a man with a woman, a man with another man, a woman with another woman, a transgender with another transgender or a transgender with a man or a woman". It provided that any two persons who have been in a partnership for more than two years shall have the same rights and obligations as married couples, and mandated that all marriages be registered with the state. The draft stated that "all married couples and couples in a partnership are entitled to adopt a child. The sexual orientation of the married couple or the partners are not to be a bar to their right to adoption. Non-heterosexual couples will be equally entitled to adopt a child." Finally, the code provided for the repeal of all of India's marriage-related laws (the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, The Indian Christian Marriage Act, among others). The draft was submitted to the Law Commission of India for consideration.
Whether India should adopt the Uniform Civil Code is a matter of ongoing political debate.[25] The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) supports a uniform civil code and was the first party in India to do so.[26] The Law Commission began soliciting public views and requests on the issue on 19 March 2018, and later extended the deadline for opinions to 6 May 2018.[27] Muslim groups oppose a uniform civil code because such a code would ban triple talaq, polygamy and would not be based on Sharia law, unlike current Muslim personal law, which governs Indian Muslims.[28] The Law Commission of India stated on 31 August 2018 that a uniform civil code is "neither necessary nor desirable at this stage" in a 185-page consultation paper.[29] In February 2020, Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that "presently there is no proposal to legalise same-sex marriage", adding that the Union Government was not considering the issue.[30] In September 2023, media reported that the Law Commission had excluded same-sex marriages from a draft uniform civil code.[31]
State and territory laws
Same-sex sexual activity legal
Further complicating matters, the states and union territories of India have their own laws with regard to the registration of marriages and marriages contracted under indigenous customs and rites. In February 2006, the Supreme Court of India ruled in Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar that the states and union territories are obliged to register all marriages performed under the federal laws. The court's ruling was expected to reduce instances of child marriages, bigamy, domestic violence and unlawful abandonment. However, a majority of Hindu marriages performed in India are not registered with the government despite registration being mandatory, and are instead conducted through unwritten common law.[32] Several same-sex couples have held traditional Hindu marriage ceremonies throughout India since the late 1980s, but these marriages lack legal recognition.[33][34] Family reactions range from support to disapproval to violent persecution.[35]
In Supriyo v. Union of India, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the legislatures of the states and union territories may legalise same-sex marriage in the absence of federal legislation.[36]
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
In 1958, the Chief Commissioner published the Andaman And Nicobar Islands Hindu Marriage Registration Rules, 1958, commonly known as the Marriage Rules,[a] requiring the registration of all Hindu marriages performed in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.[38] The Rules do not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but generally assume married spouses to be "husband and wife". The Marriage Officier has also been instructed to register all marriages in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Seema, including marriages performed under the SMA.[39]
Andhra Pradesh
In 2002, the Andhra Pradesh Legislature (which consists of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly) passed the Andhra Pradesh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2002, which was later signed into law by Governor C. Rangarajan. The Act defines marriage as "all marriages performed by persons belonging to any caste or religion and also the marriages performed as per any custom, practices or any traditions including the marriages performed in the tribal areas and the word 'marriage' also includes 'remarriage'".[40] The Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride and bridegroom".[40]
In October 2007, two women got married in a temple in Visakhapatnam in the presence of the mother of one of the brides and another witness. The two women were workers in a church and they exchanged bibles in accordance with local Christian custom. When the church found out about their relationship, they were dismissed from their jobs.[41] On 18 December 2021, two men, Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang, were married in a Hindu ceremony in Hyderabad, the de jure capital of Andhra Pradesh, making "it the first gay wedding in the Telugu States".[42] Their wedding was attended by family members and close friends. "Our parents weren't initially the most supportive. However, they also didn't disapprove of it either. They decided to give us and themselves a good amount of time to introspect and come to a better conclusion. Now, we have their acceptance.", Chakraborty said.[43] The marriage is not legally recognised.[44] In August 2022, a lesbian couple were married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Srikalahasti, though the marriage lacks legal recognition. One of the women had previously been married to a man, but after meeting each other they decided to elope. They later asked for police protection in Vempalle.[45]
Shiva shakti (Telugu: శివ శక్తి, pronounced [ˈʃiʋa ˈʃakt̪i]) are a hijra community living in Andhra Pradesh. Every autumn during a three-day festival performed across Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, they are married to a sword that represents male power or Shiva, becoming the brides of the sword.[46] One of the avatars of Shiva, a central figure in Hinduism, is Ardhanarishvara, who is depicted as half-man and half-woman, representing Shiva united with his shakti. The shiva shakti identify with this form of Shiva and worship at Shiva temples. The religious meaning of the shiva shakti role is expressed in several Hindu stories, including those of Arjuna, Shiva, Bahuchara Mata and Krishna. Most people in this community belong to lower socio-economic status and live as astrologers, soothsayers, and spiritual healers.[47]
Arunachal Pradesh
In 2008, the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Arunachal Pradesh Recording of Marriage Act, 2008, which was later signed into law by Governor J. J. Singh. The Act does not explicitly ban same-sex marriage and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[48] The Act generally refers to married spouses as "the male partner" and "the female partner".
Arranged marriage is the dominant form of marriage in many tribes of Arunachal Pradesh, including the Nyishi, Hruso, Wancho, and Galo peoples.[b] While some of these cultures also practice, or historically practiced, polygyny, they are no known occurrences of same-sex marriages as understood from a Western perspective being performed in these cultures.[49]
Assam
The Government of Assam has fully complied with the Supreme Court's ruling in Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar by amending the Hindu Marriage Rules, 1961, requiring the registration of all Hindu marriages performed in Assam. The state has also passed legislation requiring the compulsory registration of Muslim marriages, Sikh marriages,[51] and marriages performed under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (Assamese: বিশেষ বিবাহ আইন, ১৯৫৪,[52] Bixex Bibah Ain, 1954, pronounced [ˈbixɛx ˈbibaɦ aɪn]; Bodo: जरʼखा जुलि बिथोनमा, 1954,[53] Jarôkha Juli Bithŵnama, 1954).[54] In May 2023, the state government expressed its opposition to same-sex marriage while the Indian Supreme Court was debating its legalisation in Supriyo.[55]
In 1999, a Boro lesbian couple, Thingring Basumatary and Roinathi, were married in a Hindu temple in Kokrajhar in the Bodoland Territorial Region. The marriage lacks legal recognition, and the couple were shunned by their families and fellow villagers, and later relocated to another village to avoid harassment and ostracization. In 2009, Roinathi was quoted as saying, "We are both very happy and now even the society where we live accepts us and treats us well."[56][57] In May 2023, as the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments in Supriyo, two young women from Guwahati, Manisha Rabha and Eliza Wahid, publicly announced their engagement. The announcement went viral on social media.[58]
Bihar
In August 2006, Governor R. S. Gavai ordered the publication of the Bihar Marriage Registration Rules, 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Bihar irrespective of the religion of the parties. They do not explicitly define marriage but generally refer to married spouses as "husband and wife".[59] The ruling party of Bihar, the centre-left Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) party, does not have an official stance on same-sex marriages. In May 2023, RJD Vice-President Shivanand Tiwari expressed his support for same-sex marriage.[60]
Many same-sex couples in Bihar resort to "marriages by elopement" (पलायन विवाह, palāyan vivāh, Hindi: [pəˈlaːjən ʋɪˈʋaːɦ]; Maithili: [pəˈlaːjən ʋɪˈʋaːɦ]) to avoid family harassment and opposition. In 2017, two women received media coverage after marrying in a traditional Hindu ceremony in Bidupur. The parents of both spouses filed separate court cases to urge the police to separate the couple. A court ordered one of the partners to be jailed for "luring a minor into marriage" as the other woman was a minor at the time. The couple is believed to have eloped to Delhi.[61] A similar case had previously occurred in 2013 when a lesbian couple married in Patna and eloped to avoid family harassment.[62] In 2022, two men, Angrej Kumar and Rupesh Sad, married in a traditional Hindu ceremony in the Khagaria district to strong opposition from family members who forced the couple to separate.[63]
Chandigarh
In July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which has jurisdiction over the union territory of Chandigarh, ruled in Manjinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others that same-sex couples are entitled to live-in relationships and protection of their lives and liberty.[64] The court did not comment on the legality of the relationship of the petitioners, a lesbian couple living in Ludhiana, Punjab, but ruled that the couple was entitled to protection of their lives and liberty as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Pooja and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court ruled in August 2023 that "Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.", ordering police to protect a lesbian couple from "potential threats to their lives".[65]
Chhattisgarh
The Government of Chhattisgarh published the Chhattigsarh Compulsory Registration of Marriages Rules, 2006 in November 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Chhattisgarh irrespective of the religion of the parties. They define marriage as "all marriages solemnized, performed or contracted between a male and a female, irrespective of the religion or caste of either party to the marriage, and also includes marriages performed as per law, custom practice or any tradition of either party to the marriage and includes a re-marriage."[66]
In March 2019, fifteen transgender women were married to their cisgender partners in a mass traditional Hindu ceremony in Raipur, although the marriages lack legal recognition. Mayor Madhu Kinnar of Raigarh attended the event and congratulated the couples, "This should have happened a long time ago because we transgender don't have anybody to share out joys and sorrows. Nobody understands our sorrows. Today the government has given us such a good scheme and has given us an opportunity to get married. I thank them profusely."[67]
Delhi
In July 2019, the Delhi High Court dismissed a legal challenge brought forward by advocates Tajinder Singh and Anurag Chauhan seeking directions to make rules and regulations to recognise same-sex marriages under the HMA.[68]
Petitioners Abhijit Iyer Mitra, Gopi Shankar Madurai, Giti Thadani and G. Oorvasi filed Abhijit Iyer Mitra & Ors v. Union of India in the Delhi High Court in 2020 asserting a right to marriage for same-sex couples under the HMA in Delhi. "aid Act does not distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual marriage if one were to go by how it has been worded. It very clearly states that marriage can indeed be solemnised between 'any two Hindus'. In this view of the matter, it can be stated that it is against the constitutional mandate of non-arbitrariness if the said right is not extended to homosexual apart from heterosexual couples," the petition, represented by lawyers Raghav Awasthi and Mukesh Sharma, said. The petition sought a declaration stating that Section 5 of the HMA did not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples and the right of same-sex couples to marry should be recognised under the Act. In November 2020, the Delhi High Court asked the Union Government to file an official response to the petition.[69]
In October 2020, a lesbian couple, medical practitioners Kavita Arora and Ankita Khanna, filed a lawsuit, Dr Kavita Arora & Anr v. Union of India,[70] with the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that the SMA ought to apply to couples irrespective of gender and sexual orientation. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy and lawyers Arundhati Katju, Govind Manoharan and Surabhi Dhar, contended that the SMA in denying recognition of same-sex marriages constituted an infringement of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The couple asserted that Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India protect the right to marry a person of one's choice, and this right should apply to same-sex couples, just as it does to opposite-sex couples. The petitioners also contended that the exclusion of same-sex marriage from the SMA violates Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India that sexual orientation and gender identity are protected under the fundamental right of equality.[71][72] Because they are unable to marry, the couple cannot own a house together, open a bank account or access family life insurance.[73] The High Court sought responses from the Union Government on the plea.[69] In Vaibhav Jain & Anr v. Union of India, two gay men, Vaibhav Jain and Parag Vijay Mehta, who had married in Washington, D.C. in 2017, contended that the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 should be perused to apply to same-sex relationships. The High Court asked the Union Government and the Consulate General of India in New York City to respond to the petition.[69]
The Delhi High Court set a hearing for all three petitions on 8 January 2021. On that day, Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Sanjeev Narula granted "one last opportunity" to the Union Government to file official responses to the three petitions.[74] The court scheduled further deliberations for 25 February 2021. The Union Government was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. On 25 February, the government asked the Delhi High Court to dismiss the cases, arguing in its response that marriage is based on "age-old customs, rituals, practices, cultural ethos and societal values" and that there thus exists a "legitimate state interest" in preventing same-sex couples from marrying.[75][76] A fourth petition, Udit Sood and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, was filed in February 2021. The petitioners, three men and one woman, represented by advocates Meghna Mishra and Tahira Karanjawala, asked the court to declare that the SMA applies to any two persons who wish to marry regardless of sex. Justices Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Amit Bansal asked the government to respond to the petition.[77] On 24 May 2021, the government asked the court to delay deliberations on the four petitions, stating that "nobody is dying because of the lack of marriage registration" and that the government's focus were on "urgent and immediate" pandemic-related issues.[78][79] A fifth petition, Joydeep Sengupta v. Union of India & Ors, was filed by Joydeep Sengupta, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), and his American partner Russell Blaine Stephens in July 2021. The couple argued that the Citizenship Act, 1955 does not distinguish between different-sex and same-sex spouses and that the same-sex spouse of an OCI should be eligible to apply for an OCI card. The plea further claimed that the Foreign Marriage Act violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in excluding the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages.[80] On 6 July 2021, the division bench of Chief Justice Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh listed the petitions for hearing on 27 August.[81]
On 25 October 2021, the High Court granted time for the petitioners to file replies and rejoinders to the government's arguments. It set a final hearing for 30 November.[73] Instead, that day, advocates representing the couples asked that the proceedings be live streamed, arguing that "the issue at hand before this is of such magnitude and ramification, that live streaming of the said proceedings shall not only have a larger outreach but also help in spreading awareness". On 31 March 2022, Acting Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Navin Chawla ordered the government to respond within two weeks to the application seeking live streaming of the proceedings.[82][83] In an affidavit, the government opposed live-streaming the proceedings, stating that the "applicants were attempting to create a dramatic impression of the proceedings before the court and to win sympathy", adding that the matter was not of "national importance".[84] On 17 May, the court objected to the government's "highly objectionable comments"; the government said it would file a new response. Advocates representing the couples said the government's statements demean the rights of same-sex couples, "I am troubled that the government of India should use words like sympathy, hallucination, you are sensationalising. You may agree or disagree on live streaming but please don't trivialise and demean the people who have struggled for years till the constitution bench of the apex court recognised their rights", said senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul.[85] The next hearing was scheduled for 20 August 2022. That day, the court deferred the hearing to 6 December.[86] In January 2023, the Delhi High Court transferred all these cases to the Supreme Court of India.[87]
Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu
The Goa Civil Code, which applies to the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, former entities of Portuguese India, defines marriage as a "perpetual contract made between two persons of different sex with the purpose of legitimately constituting a family". Marriages are solemnised before officials of the Civil Registration Services according to the conditions established by law. Article 1058, which lists forbidden marriages such as marriages to relatives or to individuals under the marriageable age, does not explicitly ban marriages between people of the same sex.[88]
Goa
Goa is unique among the states of India in being the only one to have a unified marriage law. Every citizen is bound to the same law regardless of their religion.[89] However, article 1056 of the Goa Civil Code, largely based on Portuguese civil law, defines marriage as a "perpetual contract made between two persons of different sex with the purpose of legitimately constituting a family". Marriages are solemnised before officials of the Civil Registration Services according to the conditions established by law. Article 1058, which lists forbidden marriages such as marriages to relatives or to individuals under the marriageable age, does not explicitly ban marriages between people of the same sex.[88]
Reported in the media as "India's first gay marriage", designer Wendell Rodricks and his French partner, Jerome Marrel, entered into a civil solidarity pact (PACS), a French civil union scheme, in 2002. Rodricks later reported that the evening of the signing of the PACS 8 "scruffy-looking men" came to the couple's house in Colvale. Although he anticipated trouble, the men instead said "Landlord, you are getting married and not buying us a round of drinks?" Scroll.in reported this history in 2022 as an "early sign" on how Goans would "overcome prejudice to open arms to the queer community".[90]
In 2006, a local LGBT advocacy group stated that in the past two years they had conducted 25 same-sex marriages, though the marriages lack legal recognition under the SMA or the Hindu Marriage Act (Konkani: हिंदू लग्न कायदो, १९५५,[91] Hindū Lagna Kāydo, 1955). "Fearing social stigma and discrimination, we had to conduct all these marriages in a clandestine manner.", said a spokesman for the group.[92] There have also been cases of marriages between cisgender men and transgender women.[93] In 2022, a lesbian couple, Dr. Paromita Mukherjee and Dr. Surabhi Mitra, originally from Nagpur, Maharashtra, had a "big, fat, sea-side destination wedding" in Goa. The couple went public with the news of their wedding.[94] Mukherjee said, "We are over the moon with the love we are garnering. Somewhere we knew that the society and its aware people will celebrate our love with us."[95]
Gujarat
In March 2006, Governor Nawal Kishore Sharma signed the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Gujarat irrespective of the religion, caste or creed of the parties. It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride" and "bridegroom".[96] Civil unions (Gujarati: નાગટયક વાંઘ,[97] nāgaṭayaka vāṅgha; Sindhi: سِوِل يونين, sivil eonen) are also not recognised in Gujarat. A famous Gujarati resident to have entered into a same-sex marriage is Prince Manvendra Singh Gohil, probable heir of the honorary Maharaja of Rajpipla, who married his American partner Cecil "DeAndre" Richardson (né Hilton) in Seattle in July 2013.[98]
In June 2020, a lesbian couple from the Mahisagar district filed a petition with the Gujarat High Court seeking police protection from their families and recognition of their right to cohabitation. The couple had entered into a "friendship agreement" (મૈત્રી કરાર,[99] maitri karar, pronounced [ˈməjtɾi ˈkəɾɑɾ]) as a way to legitimise their relationship; "like in case of a marital union, it had details on property ownership, inheritance and maintenance, in case of separation." A maitri karar is a written document, often registered and notarized, which contains the terms and conditions on which a couple agrees to enter into cohabitation.[100] The High Court granted their petition on 23 July 2020 and ordered the Mahisagar police to give protection to the couple.[101] Maya Sharma, an activist with the Vikalp Women's Group, said "such contracts in court cases in which one of the partners' parents were forcing marriage upon them. It has helped us get judgements in our favour." The first maitri karar between a same-sex couple occurred in 1987 in the Chhota Udaipur district.[102]
In the village of Angaar in the Kutch district, the local Kutchi culture celebrates ritualistic transgender marriages every year during the festival of Holi, a custom that has been followed for over 150 years.[103]
Haryana
In April 2008, Governor Akhlaqur Rahman Kidwai signed the Haryana Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2008 into law. The Act provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Haryana irrespective of the religion, caste or creed of the parties. It does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage. However, the Act generally refers to married spouses as "bride" and "bridegroom".[104]
A single case of legal recognition of a same-sex marriage was granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 22 July 2011. The couple held a marriage ceremony in Gurgaon after signing an affidavit asserting that they met all of the requirements of a legal marriage. It is understood that the families of both spouses disapproved of the union, and the couple sought police protection following death threats from family members and local villagers.[105] Previously, three same-sex couples had married at the Mata Mansa Devi Mandir in the Panchkula district in July 2009, though the marriages lack legal recognition.[106] A lesbian couple had also married in a temple in Faridabad in 1993.[107]
In October 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a case, Monu Rajput v. State of Haryana, filed by a transgender man whose partner was being wrongfully detained by family members in Hansi. The court ruled that the partner could stay with her family, but gave the petitioner the right to visit from time to time.[108] A little under two months after the dismissal of this writ petition, the couple ran away together and got a protection order from the Delhi High Court.[109] In July 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in Manjinder Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others that same-sex couples are entitled to live-in relationships and protection of their lives and liberty.[64] The court did not comment on the legality of the relationship of the petitioners, a lesbian couple living in Ludhiana, Punjab, but ruled that the couple was entitled to protection of their lives and liberty as provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. In Pooja and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court ruled in August 2023 that "Article 21 of the Constitution on protection of life and personal liberty not cease to apply when people of the same gender decide to live together.", ordering police to protect a lesbian couple from "potential threats to their lives".[65]
Himachal Pradeshedit
In 1997, the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly passed the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Marriages Act, 1997, requiring the registration of all marriages performed in Himachal Pradesh. The Act does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriages and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[110]
On 22 June 2016, the Himachal Pradesh High Court recognised a guru-chela, or guru-shishya (गुरु-शिष्य, Sanskrit: [ˈɡuɾu ˈɕiʂjɐ]; Hindi: [ɡʊˈɾuː ˈʃɪʂjə]), relationship between two hijra (referred to as "eunuchs" in court documents) for the purpose of allowing the guru to claim the property of their late chela.[111] Within the guru-chela system, the guru is considered the legal heir to the chela's property. In Sweety (Eunuch) v General Public, the High Court recognised this relationship and ruled that succession should be governed according to the guru-chela custom rather than under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.[112] In April 2022, two young men, who had married in a traditional ceremony in Delhi, asked for police protection from family members in Una.[113]
Jammu and Kashmiredit
Marriage registration laws provide for the registration of all Muslim, Hindu and Sikh marriages performed in Jammu and Kashmir,[114][115] as well as those performed under the SMA. These laws do not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, but the marriage certificate forms generally require the names of the "bride" and "bridegroom".
In 2007, a Sikh lesbian couple, Baljit Kaur and Rajwinder Kaur, eloped from Batala, Punjab, and married on 3 June at the Vaishno Devi Temple in Katra where an army officer agreed to marry them. They caused public controversy when they announced their marriage to the media later in the month. Rajwinder's family later tracked the couple and lodged a complaint against Baljit, claiming that she had "enticed their daughter". In court, Rajwinder testified against Baljit claiming that she had been "coerced into their lesbian relationship". Baljit argued that Rajwinder's family had forced her to testify against their relationship.[41][116] In the Kashmir Valley, transgender women, also known as hijra,[c] have long been accepted as matchmakers and as performers at wedding ceremonies.[118]
Jharkhandedit
All marriages performed in Jharkhand must be registered with the Jharkhand Compulsory Registration of Marriage Act, 2017. The Act does not explicitly forbid same-sex marriages.[119] The largest party in the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, has declined to take an official position on the legalisation of same-sex marriage.[120]
Although the marriage lacks legal recognition, two women were married in a Hindu temple in Kodarma in December 2020. It is understood that the family of both spouses were opposed to the union.[3] Several same-sex marriage ceremonies have also taken place among the Ho people. "Tribal society has no hassles accepting gay marriages. It has been happening amongst them since decades.", according to a 2009 report from the Hindustan Times. There is also a hijra community among the Ho people, known as kā pē'jani' (𑣌𑣁𑣁 𑣘𑣈𑣈𑣄𑣎𑣁𑣐𑣓𑣄, pronounced [kaː ˈpeːʔjaniʔ]),[121] as well as among the Santal people, known as cākrā (ᱪᱟᱠᱨᱟ),[122] and the Kurukh people, known as cakṛā (चकृा, pronounced [tʃaˈkɽaː]).[123]
Karnatakaedit
The Government of Karnataka published the Karnataka Marriage (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 2006 in the Karnataka Gazette on 18 April 2006. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages solemnized in Karnataka irrespective of the religion of the parties. The marriage certificate form requires the names of the "bride" and the "bridegroom".[124] The Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976 does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including remarriage.[125]
Some same-sex couples have married in traditional marriage ceremonies, though the marriages have no legal status in Karnataka. Nived Antony Chullickal and Abdul Rahim, originally from Kerala, were married in Bangalore in December 2019.[126] "I really just wanted to get married to my boyfriend and shared pre-wedding photoshoot, firstly, as a message to everyone that it is better to be late than never and second, it is so good to come out and marry your partner. Our wedding was like any other wedding. I also wanted it to be an inspiration for people, so that they too can do the same, and now so many people have called me and I really feel good that I have been an inspiration for all.", Chullickal told The News Minute.[127]
In 2020, members of the Kodava community called for the "ostracisation" of Dr. Sharath Ponnappa, a Kodava, because he chose to wear traditional Kodava attire, the kupya-chele,[d] at his marriage to Sundeep Dosanj, a Punjabi American, in the United States on 26 September 2020. K. S. Devaiah, the president of the Kodava Samaja in Madikeri, a community group representing Kodava interests, noted that while there had been several instances of inter-caste marriages, this was the first same-sex marriage in the community. "This wedding, where the couple wore traditional Kodava attire, is an insult to the entire community. Hence, after a meeting the members of the Kodava Samaja, we have recommended ostracisation of Sharath Ponnappa from the community. ... Gay marriage is one thing and wearing sacred Kodava attire to solemnise a gay marriage is another thing. We are against the latter.", said Devaiah.[128] Ponnappa, a California doctor, responded to the controversy, saying, "We knew there would be dissenters, but we have literally been fighting for acceptance since the day we were born, fighting to survive and be treated the same as our peers. However, we proudly choose to live our truth, celebrate our same-sex marriage and encourage the dissenters to open their minds and engage in positive dialogue to understand that all humans are created equally and deserve respect and love."[129] Kodava actor Gulshan Devaiah weighed in, stating, "I look at the picture and they look beautiful and all that matters to me is the coming together of two people who love each other. I see the fact that they decided to wear the Kodava attire as a mark of respect and celebration of the Kodava traditions."[130]
The Halakki Vokkaliga, an indigenous people living in the Uttara Kannada district, have been celebrating traditional lesbian marriages for "so long that none living in the community now knows when and how it began". One such wedding, known in Kannada as daḍḍuve maduve (ದಡ್ಡುವೆ ಮದುವೆ, pronounced [ˈd̪ɐɖːʊʋe ˈmɐd̪ʊʋe]), is performed every year to honour Indra and pray that "the rain shouldn't be more or less than required". After the procession and rituals, the newly-weds, both of whom are dressed in saris, are blessed and given gifts just as at any other wedding. A recent daḍḍuve maduve in 2022 took place in a Hindu temple honouring Ganesha, who holds importance for the Halakki Vokkaliga.[131][132]
Keralaedit
In 2008, the Government of Kerala, by order of Governor R. L. Bhatia, published the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 in the Kerala Gazette on 29 February 2008. The Rules provide for the registration of all marriages in Kerala "solemnized … after the commencement of these Rules … irrespective of the religion of the parties". The marriage certificate form requires the name, nationality, age, date of birth, address, and the previous marital status of the "husband" and the "wife".[133][134] Civil partnerships (Malayalam: ഗാര്ഹിക പങ്കാളിത്തം, gārhika paṅkāḷittaṁ, pronounced [ˈgaːɾhigə paŋˈgaːɭit̪ːam]) are also not recognised in Kerala. In a survey published by the Azim Premji Foundation and Lokniti-CSDS in 2019, 58% of participants from the state opposed same-sex relationships; the fourth highest among the twelve states surveyed.[135] The 2021 Mathrubhumi Youth Manifesto Survey conducted on people aged between 15 and 35 showed that 74.3% of respondents supported legalising same-sex marriage, while 25.7% were opposed.[136]
In January 2020, Sonu Soman, an IP professional, and Nikesh Pushkaran, a businessman, filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, arguing that preventing them from marrying under the SMA violated the principle of equality, non-arbitrariness, non-discrimination, individual dignity and personal autonomy of Articles 14, 15(1), 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.[137][138] The couple, from the Ernakulam district, had sought to marry at the Guruvayur Temple, but authorities refused to solemnize the marriage and issue a certificate; they married in a secret ceremony in a car parking area of the temple in July 2018.[139] They cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, which decriminalized homosexuality in India in 2018 and recognized a person's right to be treated with dignity regardless of sexual orientation, whilst arguing that exclusion from the institution of marriage denies them basic rights and privileges such as maintenance, inheritance, pension, joint bank accounts, etc: "The institution of marriage affords certain rights and privileges to the persons in matrimony in the society and due to the aforesaid exclusion, the homosexual couples like the petitioners are denied an opportunity to enjoy similar rights and privileges. Being married carries along with it the right to maintenance, right of inheritance, a right to own joint bank accounts, lockers; nominate each other as a nominee in insurance, pension, gratuity papers etc. All these are unavailable to the Petitioners due to their exclusion from the institution of marriage, making the said exclusion more discriminatory."[140] The couple filed the writ on 24 January with Justice Anu Sivaraman.[141] As of October 2022, the Kerala Government had not yet filed a response to the writ petition. Soman and Pushkaran wrote to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, but likewise did not receive a response.[142] In November 2022, the Deputy Solicitor General announced that the government was planning on transferring the writ petition to the Supreme Court of India.[143]
In 2018, the Kerala High Court ruled in Sreeja S v. Commissioner of Police that a lesbian couple, Sreeja and Aruna, did not violate the law by living together in a same-sex relationship. The couple had moved in together, but Aruna's parents filed a missing person complaint with the police, and later attempted to send her to a mental hospital in Thiruvananthapuram. During the court proceedings, Aruna clarified that she was living with Sreeja of her own free will. The court held that their live-in relationship did not violate the law, and ordered that the couple be allowed to freely reside together.[144][145] In May 2022, the Kerala High Court gave a Muslim lesbian couple, Fathima Noora and Adhila Nasarin, the right to live together. The couple had been forcibly separated by their families, with Noora allegedly being forced into conversion therapy. Nasarin filed a habeas corpus plea, Adhila Nasarin v. Commissioner of Police, stating, "Noora's mother came and showed me a petition saying that I kidnapped her and she will take her back. They are very cruel, they may try to kill her and there were several threats from Noora's family. They even threatened to kill me and my father. Noora was taken away from me by force." In a short proceeding before Justices K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran, the court issued a judgement in favour of the couple on 31 May.[146][147] The couple were married in a traditional ceremony in October 2022.[148][149] In 2022, a woman from Kaloor filed a habeas corpus plea, Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala, alleging that her same-sex partner had been illegally detained by her parents. The couple had been together for a year and planned on getting married. On 2 February 2023, the High Court denied the plea and directed the detained partner to attend psychiatric counselling. On 6 February, the plaintiff filed for review with the Indian Supreme Court. In her petition, she stated that the counselling recommended by the High Court "is obviously counselling to change her sexual orientation.", and urged her partner's release.[150][151]
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_India
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky
použitia.
www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk