LUCKNOW: Opposing the trend of same-sex marriage, the Uttar Pradesh government termed such marriages against Indian culture and various other religions co-existing in the country.
Making such submissions in Allahabad High Court recently, the state government said that such marriages should be deemed invalid under Indian laws which were designed on the concept related to the existence of a man and a woman.
In the wake of the state government’s submission, HC’s Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, while hearing a petition of habeas corpus, delivered his order dated April 7 rejecting a request to recognize same-sex marriage. The petition was filed by one Anju Devi, the mother of one of the girls in a lesbian relationship.
Anju Devi had urged the court to ensure the custody of her daughter, 23, alleging that she had been illegally detained by another 22-year-old woman (Opposite party No 4 in the case).
Earlier, on the mother's plea, the court had on April 6, 2022, issued directives to produce both the girls in the court.
On April 7, 2022, both came to the court and submitted that they were major and were in love. They claimed that they had entered into a same-sex marriage with mutual consent. In this regard, they also produced a matrimonial contract letter in the court for the perusal of the judge.
Further, they urged the court to accord acknowledgment to their marriage as they were adults and had entered into a homosexual marriage. In their arguments, they had referred to the Supreme Court’s order decriminalizing consensual sex among all adults, including homosexual sex in its ruling in the case of Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. v. Union of India thr. Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice AIR 2018 SC 4321.
Both the girls also argued that though the Hindu Marriage Act talks about the marriage of two people, it did not oppose homosexual marriage.
Meanwhile, the additional government advocates (AGA), representing the Uttar Pradesh government, opposed the submission by the girls arguing that in India, marriage was considered to be a sacred 'sanskara' and that the country was being run on cultural and religious values and Indian law, unlike other countries where marriage was a contract.
Referring to the Hindu Marriage Act, the AGAs further submitted that it talked about marriage between a woman and a man and in the absence of either of the two, marriage could not be accepted in any way, as it defied the Indian family concept.
Further stressing that the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Special Marriage Act 1954, and even the Foreign Marriage Act 1969 also did not allow homosexual marriage, the State of UP argued that even Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh, etc. religions had not recognized homosexual marriage.
The government counsel further submitted that according to the Indian Sanatan Vidhi, 16 ‘sanskars’ were there including the rituals related to individual right from his/her presence in the mother’s womb to last rites and in all 16 rituals, a man and a woman had a definitive role to play. In their absence, such rituals could not be completed, argued the advocates.
"As per the Indian law and culture, a biological husband and biological wife have been said to be essential for marriage and only their marriage has been recognized. In their absence, homosexual marriage cannot be recognized as it lacks male and female, and neither can they produce children. Marriage is considered important in Hindu law, under which both men and women live together and carry forward the human chain by producing children," it was further submitted.