IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JHINDYA

APPEAL UNDER ART.133 OF CONSTITUTION OF JHINDYA

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. RADHA & SARALA & ORS. … PETITIONER(S)
2. KUTUMBA SAMITI V/S.
… RESPONDENT (S)

AN APPEAL UNDER ART.133 OF CONSTITUTION OF JHINDYA,

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:

RADHA & SARALA & ORS.
V.

KUTUMBA SAMITI

FOR THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HON’BLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF JHINDYA

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE RESPONDENTS

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No. 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES………………………….......................................................Page No. 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION…………………......................................................Page No. 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………..........................Page No. 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES………………………..……...……........................................Page No. 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS……………………...……...……………………….......Page No. 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED………………………...……...………………..………Page No. 9-23

DOES THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955 MEAN ONLY BETWEEN A 'MAN' AND
A 'BRIDE'?.......................................Page No. 9

DOES THE DEFINITION OF 'BRIDE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT INCLUDE

'TRANSGENDER'?..............................................................................................................Page No. 14

DOES THE SCOPE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO TRANSGENDER PEOPLE EXTEND TO OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS SUCH

AS ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE?....Page No. 13

❖ THE PRAYER..................................................................................................................... Page No. 24

 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

I . CASES:
01
Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arbinda Bose AIR 1953 SC 75 (India).

02 B.K Garg v. S.S Azad AIR 1957 All 37 (India).

03 B. R. Reddy vs. State of Madras 1952 AIR 149 (India).
04 Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1961) 3 SCR 423
05 Baradakanta Mishra vs The Registrar Of Orissa High Court (1976) 3 SCC 327
06 Brahma Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1954 SCR 1169
07 C.K. Daphtary v. O.P. Gupta (1971) Supp. S.C.R. 76
08 D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of India 1996 Cri LJ 3274
09 DC Saxena v. The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India 1996 SCC (7) 216
10 Debabrata Bandopadhyaya v. State of West Bengal AIR 1969 SC 189 (India).
11 E.M. Sankaran Namboodripad v. T. Narayanan Nambiar 1970 Cri LJ 1670
12 E. T. Sen v. E. Narayanan AIR 1969 Del 201
13 In re, Arundhati Roy (2002) 3 SCC 343 (India).
14 In re Prashanath Bhushan (CRL). No 1 of 2020
15 In Re: S. Mulgaokar (1978) 3 SCC 339 (India).
16 In re: ‘G’, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court AIR 1954 SC 557
17 In Re: Reference by Judicial Magistrate First class (1987) 89 BOM LR 290
18 In Re: Vinay Chandra Mishra 1995 Cri LJ 3994
19 Lakhan Singh v. Balbir Singh (1953) 1 ALL. 796
20 Legal Remembrancer v. BB Das Gupta (1953) Pat. 1069
21 Leo Roy Frey v. R. Prasad (1958) Punj. 1723
22 Manik Chandra Gupta v. Virendra Kumar 1979 Cri LJ 412 (All) (India).
23 Mankad Probodh Chandra v. Sha Panlal Nanchand AIR 1954 Kutch 2 (India).
24 Pennekamp v. Florida (1946) 90 Led 1295
25 Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 221 (India).
26 Pritam Lal v. High Court of M.P AIR 1992 SC 904
27 R. Muthukrishnan v. The Registrar General of the High Court of J(u2d0i1c9at)u1re6 aStCMCa4d0ra7s
28 Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Proprietors of Indian Express N(e1w9s8p8a)p4erSCC 592
29 Rex v. Evening Standard Ltd (1924) 40 TLR 833
30 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India 1981 Supp SCC 87
31 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. SEBI (2012) 10 SCC 603
32 Schenck v. United States (1918) 249 US 47
33 Shamim v. Zinat 1971 AWR 203: 1971 Cri LJ 1586 a
(Indi
34 State v. Biswanath Mahapatra AIR 1955 Ori 169 (India)
35 State v. Ram Chander (’59) A. Punj. 41
36 The State of Bombay vs. P AIR 1959 BOM 182
 II. BOOKS

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1949
2. HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
3. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956
4. HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956
5. TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2019
6. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
7. SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.
8. TRANSGENDER FAMILY LAW BY JENNIFER L. LEVI’S

III. ONLINE RESOURCES

1. http://www.manupatra.in/
2. https://login.westlawindia.com/
3. http://www.scconline.com/
4. http://www.airwebworld.com/content/

IV. STATUTES REFERRED

1. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1949
2. HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
3. HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956
4. HINDU ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE ACT, 1956
5. TRANSGENDER PERSONS (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS) ACT, 2019
6. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
7. SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT, 1954.
8. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ACT,1998
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme court of Hindus under the Article-133, clause-
(1), sub-clause-(a) of the Constitution of India,1949.

Constitution of India, 1949:

Article 133:

Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in regard to civil matters

(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a civil
proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court certifies under Article
134A
(a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance; and
(b) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Article 132, any party appealing to the Supreme Court under
clause (1) may urge as one of the grounds in such appeal that a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly decided.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in this article, no appeal shall, unless Parliament by law otherwise
provides, lie to the Supreme Court from the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of a
High
Court.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ON BEHALF

OF THE RESPONDENTS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE WRIT PETITION
BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

Page|8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Radha and Sarala are transgender. Sarala had undergone sex-reassignment surgery at the age of
19. Radha was born male; however, she identifies as a woman. Both are 35 years and work as
office assistants in different corners of the city. Radha and Sarala live in Chingaluru with other
transgender people in a remote part and manage their affairs through meagre salaries and
begging.

2. Radha was abandoned by her parents when she turned 12, and Sarala decided to run away
from home, unable to understand her sexuality and being traumatized by the constant
discrimination she faced by her friends and family due to her effeminate behaviour and the
pressure of conformity to masculine identity. She was stopped from attending school after 9 th
standard, although she was a bright student excelling in academics and sports.

3. They both found a safe refuge after encountering Lhakkai, a renowned transgender person in
Chingaluru. She asked them to stay with her and made efforts to provide them jobs using her
contacts. Since that accidental meeting, Radha and Sarala have lived with 20 other transgender
people in their house called Prakriti for the last 10 years.

4. Radha and Sarala fell in love over the course of time and visited movie halls, parks and
sometimes went on a vacation after saving some money. They do this discreetly without
informing anybody. They had also made plans to live together and raise a child. Meanwhile,
Sarala's family finds where she lives through some relatives who had seen Sarala at a vegetable
market. Sarala's family searched for her, found her place and decided to visit her only to be
shocked to find her transitioned, and the knowledge about her relationship with Radha only
further angered them. After a scuffle between Sarala's friends and family, the family decides to
leave but only after delivering threats towards both Radha and Sarala. Shocked by the events,
both Radha and Sarala become cautious and decide to get married and try to move places as soon
as possible.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

Page|9

5. Radha's uncle Shyamu used to visit Radha's parents regularly and took a keen interest on Radha's
well-being. When Radha was abandoned, she stayed with Shyamu for a few years and continued
to remain in touch after she decided to live by herself. It was only in October that Radha told
Shyamu of Sarala and their plans to get married and live together as a couple. Shyamu was
surprised at this new development but, being a well-wisher, wanted to help her out. He had called
her to meet for lunch on the same day Sarala's parents visited Radha. After hearing about the
scuffle, Shyamu went with Radha to a police station near his house to seek protection for Radha
and Sarala in case they were to encounter any danger.

6. Two weeks after the events with Sarala's family, Radha and Sarala, along with their friends, met
at the Yellamma temple in Krishigiri and in line with Hindu customs got married. As soon as
marriage photos became public, a pro binary gender family organization called 'Kutumba Samiti'
began to harass and threaten the newlyweds that they are violating the institution of marriage and
transgender people cannot tie the mangalasutra. Kutumba Samiti also put out an advertisement
in the newspaper about the sanctity and importance of marriage being diluted and withered away
by marriage between transgender people.

7. They approached the High Court of Vataka for nullification of marriage. The reasoning of the court was
as follows "while the marriage was done according to Hindu customs and we cannot nullify marriage
on those grounds, the law defines marriage between a man and a 'bride'. Even if we include transgenders within
the ambit of 'bride', the definition of 'man' cannot be changed or contested. On these grounds, we declare
the marriage invalid."

8. While Kutumba Samiti celebrated the verdict, Radha and Sarala were aggrieved and decided
to go on appeal. Along with other transgender organizations in the country, they approached the
Supreme Court of Jhindya to recognize their marriage and extend marital rights.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 10

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 mean only between a
'man' and a 'bride'?
2. Does the definition of 'bride' under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act
include 'transgender'?
3. Does the scope of marriage between two transgender people extend to other attendant
rights such as adoption and maintenance?
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1: DOES THE DEFNITION OF MARRIAGE UNDER THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT OF 1955 MEAN
ONLY BETWEEN A “MAN” AND A “BRIDE” ?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court of Jhindya that in the given factual matrix the definition of
the term ‘Marriage’ under Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 ‘Marriage’ refers to solemnization of ties
between a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’’. A person who is born as intersex but recognises herself as a woman
should be discussed as “bride” under Section 5 of the said act, but there is no explanation as to
inclusion of transwoman or transgender in the definition of ‘man’. Hence, the appellants cannot
validate the marriage as the definition of ‘man’ cannot be changed or contested. The High court of
Vataka expressed the same while dismissing the matter.

ISSUE 2: DOES THE DEFINITION OF “BRIDE” UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
1955 ALSO INCLUDE TRANSGENDER?

It is humbly submitted that Section 5 of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which talks about the conditions
of a Hindu marriage, refers to “party” as “groom”, and “bride”. The word Bride as mentioned in
Section 5(iii) literally means, “woman who has just married or is going to be married”, the word
‘Transgender’ finds no place in the Act. Hence, the relief sought by the appellants cannot be granted
unless several laws are altered and therefore, the marriage between Radha and Sarala does not have
any legal sanction as they do not fall within the definition of the term ‘bride’ under Section-5 of
Hindu Marriage Act,1955

ISSUE 3: WHETHER THE SCOPE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO TRANSGENDER PERSONS EXTEND

TO OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS SUCH AS ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE?

It is to bring before the Hon’ble Supreme court of Hindya that The HAMA under Sections 7 & 8
recognizes a valid adoption only if it is done by a male or female, and thus, third genders are
out of the scope of application of this Act. Also, by virtue of Sections 4 & 5 of the said Act,
adoptions by virtue of the custom of reet in Transgenders have been delegitimized, by
providing overriding powers to the provisions of the Act over customs. Hence, no statutory
provisions have yet been made recognizing transgenders valid for adoption.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act,1955 mean

only b etween a ‘man’ and a ‘bride’?

1.1 Irrespective of standpoint of the appellants the definition of marriage under

HMA only includes a man and a bride.

The institution of marriage, which is a legally recognized and legally defined

relationship between two persons, has a great social significance, as it greatly enjoys
rights and obligations, especially those of property, succession, inheritance and related
rights, ultimately from the institution of marriage. Hindu marriage is “a religious
sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in a permanent relationship for the
physical, social and spiritual need of dharma, procreation and sexual pleasure.” Section
5 of this Act prescribes the essentials of a Hindu marriage. As per this section, two
Hindus, one of whom can be identified as bride and other the bridegroom, can
solemnize a marriage, unless it is barred by subsection (iii), (iv), and (v) of the section 1.
Indian society is basically “a socially recognized union of two individuals which is
governed either by uncodified personal laws or codified statutory laws. There is no
acceptance of the institution of marriage between two individuals of the same gender
either in personal laws or codified statutory laws. Hence, whether legal sanction can be
accorded to same sex marriages is not an issue that can be decided by way of judicial
adjudication but by the legislature. The jurisprudence of any nation, be it by way of
codified law or otherwise, evolves, based on societal values, beliefs, cultural history and
other factors.
Therefore, it is submitted before the hon’ble court that the appellants petition does not
stand on the fundamental grounds of a marriage under Hindu Law.

1.2 Scope and meaning of the words ‘man’ and ‘bride’ under HMA,1955

As per Section 5 of this Act, only a marriage of a bride and a bridegroom is valid and
recognized. The terms “bride” and “bridegroom” are gendered terms. It necessarily
translates to “woman” and “man” on their wedding day. Thus, it provides no recognition
to marriages for the third gender. It is to be noted that in the leading case of "Arun
kumar vs The Inspector General Of ... on 22 April, 2019" the Hon’ble court stated that,
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 13

"a person who is born as intersex but recognizes herself as a woman should be discussed
as “bride” under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, directing that the
marriage within a male and the transwoman be recorded under the act, and a transexual
was also a “bride” and the term applied in the Act would not significantly indicate only
to a woman2. However, no law regarding the same has been enacted yet and one cannot
rely merely on precedent. Since it is a normal understanding that the husband is
considered to be a male and the wife is considered to be a female. But in case of LGBT
marriage since both the partners are of the same gender this definition can’t be applied.

Further, If the meaning of the terms husband and wife are not properly interpreted then
it will result in ambiguity with regards to the application of the law. It is submitted
before the hon’ble court that to be noted that for the marriage to be solemnized between
a 'Man' and 'a women or Transgenders or others' at least one party to the marriage
should be a man. In the present matrix of facts both the appellants i.e., Rani and Sheela
are transwomen and neither party to the marriage falls into the category of a 'man'.

1
Hindu Marriage Act 1955
11
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 14

1.3 Customs as a source of law

Codified Hindu Law has given an important place to the custom and usages and
considered it as a parent of Hindu law. Custom under ‘Hindu Marriage Act 1955’ has
been used in three situations. Firstly, the marriages can be solicited as per the customary
tradition which is followed by the party. Secondly, divorce can be obtained by parties on
the prevailing custom and usages. Thirdly, adoption can be done as per the customary
rules. Section 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 defines custom as a rule which is followed
for a long time and has obtained the force of law among people of the Hindu
community. It also stated that custom must be ancient, must be reasonable, and it should
not be in derogation to the laws of the country. 3Moreover, such a custom must not be
immoral, or opposed to public policy, or expressly forbidden by law. It is pertinent to
note that Customs should not be against the moral values or set of ethical standards that
the society follows. Marriage also is a customary practice in India and can be defined as
“a religious sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound in a permanent
relationship for the physical, social and spiritual need of dharma, procreation and sexual
pleasure.” Hence the fundamental existence of the institution of marriage is based upon
our old aged customs that it is a ritual to be performed between a man and a woman. In
Hurpurshad v. Sheo Dayal the Privy Council observed that “a custom is a rule which,
in a particular family, or a particular caste or community, or in a particular district,
hasfrom long usage obtained the force of law. It must be ancient, certain and
reasonable”.3 Allowing same-sex marriages will hamper the customary rule of
institution of marriage and will be immoral and against public policy.
2
"Arun kumar vs The Inspector General Of 22 April, 2019

Burden of proof / Onus of proof - The person who is ascertaining the establishment of
the custom which is in derogation to the laws must prove the existence of such custom
and so the burden of proof lies upon such person. Conversely, when a custom has been
proved, the burden of proving its discontinuance lies on the party who alleges such
discontinuance. In the case of Harihar Prasad Singh V. Balmiki Prasad Singh the
supreme court held that burden of proof lies upon a person who claims its existence and
such person have to prove that the custom is valid enough to be established contrary to
laws.4Hence, the burden of proof lies on the appellants to disregard the customary laws
of marriage and establish as to why such a custom is arbitrary and violative.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 15
1.4 Validity of a marriage between two transgender women
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme court that as mentioned a marriage under Hindu
marriage act,1955 can only be solemnized between a bridegroom and bride. In Navtej Singh Johar
case, the Supreme Court’s ruling granted same sex couples the freedom to lead a dignified private
life but allows them only ‘basic right to companionship so long as such companionship is
consensual, free from the vice of deceit, force, coercion, and does not result in the violation of
fundamental rights of others . It is pertinent to note that Decriminalization of section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code does not automatically translate into a Fundamental Right for same sex couple to
marry. Therefore, the appellants plea here to recognize and validate their same sex marriage,
considering both the parties to the marriage are transwomen does not stand on the basic grounds
required for a marriage.

2. Does the definition of ‘bride’ under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act include
‘ transgender’?

2.1 Definition of bride under Hindu Marriage Act,1955

As, the term referred the dictionary meaning of the word ‘bride' was presented which
ordinarily means ‘women on her wedding day’. to any special specification of gender.
As, per the Hindu Marriage Act. “The word Bride as in Mentioned section 5(iii) [of the
Hindu Marriage Act] literally means as, “ woman who has just married or is going to be
married, the word Transgender finds no place in the Act,” It is to bring before the
Hon’ble Supreme court of Hindya that 'Transgenders' are not included under the Hindu
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 16

Marriage Act, "Section 5" which provides the conditions of a Hindu marriage, refers to “party” as “groom”,
and “bride”.

2.2 No legislation in force to proclaim the same point

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that the appellants contention of inclusion of
‘transwoman’ in the definition of bride under Hindu marriage act 1955 is not a point delineated in
legislation. It is a normal understanding that men is considered to be the bridegroom and the women
is considered to be a bride. But in case of transgender marriage since both the partners are of the same
gender this definition can't be applied.
Though the judgement of Madras High Court Arun Kumar v the Inspector General of the Court
stated that, "a person who is born as intersex but recognizes herself as a women should be discussed
as "bride" under section 5 of the Hindu marriage act, 1955" cannot be considered as an undisputed
point of law. For this we can refer to the case Commissioner of Income Tax v M/s Sun Engineering
Works Private Limited, wherein it was held that any interim order passed even by Supreme court is
limited to that particular case and should not be used as precedent for other cases.

Also, doctrine of separation of powers which is an inherent part of basic structure of the constitution
of India clearly states that there should be separation of powers between various organs of the state.
Hence, the law-making power should rest with the legislature and judiciary focus on interpretation of
the laws. Following the same principle, the appellants cannot rely on the precedent in the case of
Arun Kumar supra as there is no law explaining the inclusion of transwoman in definition of bride.
Hence the appellants contention cannot be maintained. Hence, the marriage between Rani and Sheela
is not valid and does not have any legal sanction. Also, they do not fall within the definition of the
term ‘bride’ under Section-5 of Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

3. Does the scope of marriage between two transgender sex tend to other attendant rights
such as adoption and maintenance?
3.1 Do transgender couples have adoption and maintenance rights under HAMA?
It is to be noted that if a transgender wish to be a parent, its ideas may include pregnancy
with its partner, the birth of another person, or the adoption of a partner or partner’s
children in a past relationship. In India, adoption is governed by both secular as well as
religious laws. In the case of Hindus, it is governed by Hindu adoption and maintenance
Act, 1956. Now, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays out a gender bias
in adoption. Section 7 and 8 of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
defines the capacity of a male and female Hindu respectively to take in Adoption. A
married female cannot adopt, not even with the husband’s consent, unless her husband
dies or suffers from any disability or renounces the world or so. On the other hand, a
husband may adopt with the consent of the wife. In our case, even if the scope of
marriage lies between the transgenders, Rani is a man (biologically) but considers
herself to be a woman, and Sheela on the other hand went through sex-reassignment
surgery. Thus, even if we consider both Rani and Sheela to be treated as ‘women’, then
also they’re not eligible to adopt as long as they both are married.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 17

Moreover, the adoption regulation act does not allow a single man to adopt a girl child but a
similar restriction does not apply to a woman and she can adopt a male child. This is different
from HAMA where even a single male can also adopt a girl child provided there is an age gap of
twenty years between the two.

Since there is a different set of adoption rules applied in the case of men and women
thus, the applicability of such laws with regards to trans couple will lead to ambiguity.
Although Section 377 of IPC has been decriminalized, still the law debars LGBTQIA+
community from adopting children altogether. It is to be noted that Constitutions and
statutes usually do not address the adoption rights of LGBT persons. In case of adoption
which doesn’t involve their natural guardians, there is a higher level of scrutiny where
the transsexuals must prove before the court that they are eligible under section 7 or
section 8 of the HAMA. The judicial decisions often determine whether they can serve
as parents either individually or as couples.
3.2 No adoption rights under juvenile justice act
The Juvenile Justice Act is a secular legislation. Section 41(6) of this Act is an enabling
provision which allows ‘any person’ to adopt a child. The term ‘person’ is not gendered.
As a result, both male or female transsexuals can adopt a child under this Act. Hence,
apart from enabling people from all religious communities to adopt a child, it also
allows adoption to happen irrespective of the gender of the parent. However, the act
does not specify the position of law for transgender couples right to adoption. Section
41(6) only mentions a person right to adopt hence the definition of person is nowhere
clarified. Whether transgender couples come under the purview of the definition of
person under this act is still vague.
3.3 Transgenders are not entitled to maintenance rights
The Adoptions and Maintenance Act of 1956 dealt specifically with the legal process of
adopting children by a Hindu adult, and with the legal obligations of a Hindu to provide
"maintenance" to various family members including their wife or parents, and in-laws.
The term transgender have no place in HAMA thereby not granting adoption and
maintenance rights to transgenders.
For instance, Section 27(1-A) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides the grounds
on which a wife can take divorce but in case of LGBT marriages there is confusion
regarding the term wife. So, reading into the if transgenders do not have a right to
divorce, then right to claim maintenance remains out of question.

Hence, it is humbly submitted before the hon’ble court that even if the scope of marriage lies
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 18

between the transgenders, Rani is a man (biologically) but considers herself to be a woman, and
Sheela on the other hand went through sex-reassignment surgery. Thus, even if we consider
both Rani and Sheela to be treated as ‘women’, then also they’re not eligible to adopt as long as
they both are married.
 lOMoARcPSD|21881293

P a g e | 19

PRAYER

In light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly
prayed Before the Honorable Supreme court of JHINDYA to be pleased to:

DECLARE that Radha and Sarala are not entitled to marriage, adoption and
maintenance as per Hindu laws.

HOLD & ADJUDGE that Transgenders are not covered under the definition of
‘bride’ under Hindu Succession Act,1955 and Radha and Sarala are not entitled to start
a family together. Also, the transgender marriage is not only against the moral
principles of Hindu religion taking from which customs and usages is Hindu marriage
act,1955 made but also against the order of nature promotion of which may lead to
society imbalance and threat to mankind.

Or the Honorable Supreme court of JHINDYA may pass any other order or decree as it
deems fit in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioners shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.

AND/OR
Pass any other order it may deem fit, in the interest of Justice, Equity and
Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted.

Date: SD/-
Counsel for the Respondent