The title. Of the article “Beyond Blood and Marriage”  Beyond Blood and Marriage: The Madras High Court and the Constitutional Recognition of Chosen Families By Srimathi Venkatachari In a quiet courtroom of the Madras High Court, a young woman’s freedom

The title. Of the article “Beyond Blood and Marriage”
Beyond Blood and Marriage: The Madras High Court and the Constitutional Recognition of Chosen Families

By Srimathi Venkatachari

In a quiet courtroom of the Madras High Court, a young woman’s freedom was restored. But more than that—something rare and beautiful unfolded. The court recognised that family, in its deepest and truest sense, is not always something we are born into. Sometimes, it is something we choose. And sometimes, it chooses us.

This was the case of a young lesbian woman who had been confined by her biological family. Her partner, brave and undeterred, approached the court seeking her release through a habeas corpus petition. What began as a personal struggle for one couple became a significant moment in India’s legal and emotional history. The Court ruled that under Article 21 of the Constitution—which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty—the right to form a ” chosen family” is protected.

The judgment came without fanfare. No front-page headlines, no breathless TV panels. And yet, its quiet compassion may make it one of the most meaningful verdicts for queer communities in India—perhaps for anyone who has ever felt out of place in their own home and longed for a different kind of belonging.

What emerged from this case was not merely an order for release but a broader constitutional articulation—one that shifts the prevailing legal understanding of family in India. Traditionally, Indian statutes and jurisprudence have treated family as a legal unit formed through blood ties, marriage, or adoption. The High Court’s judgment suggests that such a framework, while still operative, is no longer exhaustive.

The ruling affirms that emotional interdependence, mutual care, and voluntary association can constitute family, and that such relationships merit protection under the Constitution. In doing so, the Court has taken a jurisprudential step forward, aligning with both international human rights norms and evolving constitutional doctrine.

The Constitutional Foundations

The Madras High Court’s approach is deeply grounded in a trilogy of landmark Supreme Court decisions:

1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. The judgment redefined liberty to include decisional autonomy over intimate choices.

2. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same-sex relationships, holding that constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide the interpretation of fundamental rights.

3. Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), while declining to legalise same-sex marriage, unequivocally recognised the dignity of queer relationships and acknowledged their right to cohabit and form households.

These decisions collectively established a framework wherein personal autonomy, dignity, and identity are intrinsic to the constitutional promise of liberty. The Madras High Court extends this logic: if individuals are constitutionally entitled to love and cohabit with whom they choose, it necessarily follows that such relationships—when rooted in care and continuity—must be seen as familial in nature .   Each of these rulings reminded us that freedom is not simply the absence of interference; it is the presence of dignity. The Madras High Court now builds on this idea. It tells us that the freedom to love is incomplete without the freedom to build a life around that love—and to call it family.

The Role of the State and Law Enforcement

A striking element of the judgment is its explicit critique of police inaction. Despite the woman’s stated preference to reside with her partner, law enforcement authorities failed to act with urgency. This pattern is not uncommon in cases involving queer individuals, especially when families assert cultural or moral objections to such relationships.

 

When the State Turns Away

A painful part of this story Is how the woman’s rights were ignored by those who should have protected them. She had told the police that she wanted to live with her partner. But the police, perhaps fearing backlash from her biological family, did not act. This is not uncommon.

For many LGBTQIA+ persons in India, the law is not always a shield. The home, far from being a safe place, can become a site of silence, shame, or violence. And when people turn to the police or the courts, they are often met with hesitation, suspicion, or indifference.

The Court’s ruling directly addresses this. Citing Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), it reminds the state that honour, tradition, or family control cannot be excuses to deny someone their freedom. The Constitution’s promise of liberty does not stop at the doorstep of one’s natal home.

The Court , reiterated the State’s duty to protect individuals from honour-based coercion, forced confinement, and familial violence. The judgment makes clear that the State cannot abdicate its constitutional obligations on the basis of social or familial discomfort.

Importantly, the Court emphasised that constitutional rights are enforceable within the domestic sphere. The home cannot be treated as a zone of exception where the State defers to patriarchal or heteronormative authority. When an adult expresses autonomous choice, State institutions must act to safeguard that choice, not merely mediate between competing familial claims.

What Makes a Family?

For a long time, Indian law has measured family by only a few yardsticks: blood, marriage, or legal adoption. These categories have structure, yes—but they also have limits. They do not always leave room for the love between two friends who raise a child together, or the care between ageing companions who share their final years, or queer couples who are denied legal recognition but live like any other family.

The Madras High Court’s ruling is, in a sense, an act of listening. It listens to lives that have not always fit into legal boxes. It acknowledges that care, trust, mutual responsibility, and chosen intimacy are as real as ancestry or ceremony. And sometimes more enduring.

Implications for Indian Jurisprudence on Family

The judgment implicitly challenges the formalistic boundaries of Indian family law. Presently, statutes such as the Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Guardians and Wards Act, and various employment and pension rules operate on fixed presumptions about what constitutes family.

However, the Court’s recognition of chosen families requires a rethinking of these frameworks. If a queer partner is legally acknowledged as part of one’s family for purposes of liberty and cohabitation, then ancillary rights—such as access to healthcare decisions, housing, pensions, inheritance, and next-of-kin status—must logically follow.

This creates a necessary tension between constitutional rights and statutory limitations. The Constitution, as interpreted by the higher judiciary, recognises a broader, more inclusive notion of family. The legislature and subordinate rule-making authorities must now respond with corresponding reform.

Comparative and International Developments

The judgment situates Indian constitutionalism within an emerging global consensus. Courts in several jurisdictions have recognised non-traditional family forms:

In Canada, jurisprudence has acknowledged “functional families” based on emotional and financial dependency, even in the absence of marriage or consanguinity.

South Africa’s Constitutional Court has repeatedly upheld the rights of same-sex couples, including in matters of adoption and inheritance, under the equality and dignity clauses of their post-apartheid constitution.

The Yogyakarta Principles, developed under international human rights law, urge states to ensure that individuals of all sexual orientations and gender identities can form families of their choosing without discrimination.

The Madras High Court’s judgment implicitly aligns with these global developments, reinforcing the idea that legal recognition of family must evolve in step with lived realities and plural social arrangements.

The Road Ahead: From Recognition to Reform

While this decision marks a progressive shift in constitutional jurisprudence, it also underscores the need for systemic reform. Indian family law remains largely status-based and heteronormative. Many laws continue to assume that valid families are those born of heterosexual marriage or biological lineage.

The Court’s language invites a more functional approach—one that recognises care, mutual dependence, and intention to live as family, rather than mere legal formality. Such an approach would not only benefit queer individuals but also single-parent households, informal caregiving relationships, and other non-traditional kinship structures.

The task ahead is therefore twofold: First, courts must continue to affirm constitutional values even where statutory recognition lags. Second, legislatures and administrative bodies must revise policy frameworks to reflect the inclusive spirit of such judgments.

A Quiet Revolution

No parade will mark this judgment. No stamp will seal it in textbooks just yet. But it is revolutionary in its own way. It reminds us that families are not just born—they are also made. In whispers of trust, in evenings spent in quiet companionship, in emergency contacts listed on hospital forms, in rent shared and tears consoled.

In doing so, the judgment charts a way forward—not only for queer rights, but for a more compassionate, inclusive, and reality-sensitive approach to the law of family in India. The Court, in its quiet wisdom, has widened the circle of family. The Court  sees what the heart has always known—families can be chosen – for   what binds a family is not only blood or contract, but care, continuity, and choice—this the Court now solemnly affirm !

Conclusion: A Constitutional Family

The Madras High Court’s judgment represents a significant evolution in Indian constitutional thought. It recognises that families are not always given—they are also made. They are formed in moments of trust, resilience, care, and companionship. And when such relationships are freely chosen and responsibly lived, they deserve the protection of the law.

By extending constitutional shelter to chosen families, the Court has not merely resolved a dispute. It has reaffirmed the dignity of the individual, the autonomy of choice, and the capacity of the Constitution to embrace a plurality of lives.

The law has finally taken a step toward recognising that truth. A truth that queer people, and many others, have always known:

That the heart, too, is a legal document !