- In a recent order, the Supreme Court made several significant observations that broaden the traditional definition of family.
- "Family relationships may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships, or queer relationships," the Court noted, adding that atypical family units are also entitled to equal legal protection.
- These observations were made by a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna in a judgement delivered on August 16 (but uploaded a few days ago) while granting maternity leave to a Central Government employee despite the fact that she had taken child care leave for her husband's children from his previous marriage.
- "The dominant understanding of the concept of a "family," both in the law and in society, is that it consists of a single, unchanging unit with a mother and a father (who remain constant over time) and their children," wrote Justice Chandrachud in his decision.
- Domestic, unmarried partnerships, and queer relationships are all examples of familial relationships.
- These manifestations of love and family may be unusual, but they are just as real as their more traditional counterparts.
- Although oblique, these observations are significant, particularly in relation to queer relationships, as the LGBTQ community has raised the issue of legal recognition for same-sex marriages, particularly since the decriminalisation of consensual homosexuality in 2018.
- The decision, which states that the law must not discriminate against women who take on the role of motherhood in ways that differ from popular perception, also opens the door to legal rights for women who use surrogacy, adoption, or assisted reproductive technologies.
- The issue in this case arose because Rule 43(1) of the Central Civil Service Rules limits maternity leave to two surviving children.
- When her child was born in the marriage, the authorities denied her maternity leave, citing Rule 43.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Rule 43 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Rules) 1972 must be given a purposeful interpretation in light of the Maternity Benefit Act and Article 15 of the Indian Constitution, which requires the state to adopt beneficial provisions to protect women's interests.
- The Court determined that the facts of the current case show that the structure of the appellant's family changed when she became a parent to her spouse's biological children from his previous marriage.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
