Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI)

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) persons face specific obstacles when it comes to accessing many of their rights, including their right to social protection.

The terms lesbian, gay, bisexual and pansexual refer to people’s sexual orientation, that is, who they experience sexual attraction towards; while transgender refers to gender identity, that is, “someone whose gender differs from the one they were given when they were born”. Terms like genderqueer and non-binary refer to people who fall outside the construction of gender as male or female. Intersex people are born with physical or biological sex characteristics such as reproductive or sexual anatomy, hormones or chromosomes that do not seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male.

This is not an exhaustive list of terms: different cultures, both historically as well as today, have used diverse language which express the wide range of sexual orientations and gender expressions, such as “Two-Spirit”, which refers to Native American and First Nations people who fall outside Western gender norms, while “hijra” typically refers to South Asian individuals who were assigned male at birth, but identify as women or as a third gender.

LGBTQI people are entitled to the enjoyment of all the rights outlined in international, regional and domestic human rights law. Yet, due to strongly held cultural and social norms surrounding gender expression and sexuality, LGBTQI people are often excluded. The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) recognizes this, stating that “social and legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and intersex, is pervasive”.

However, recently, some nations have passed legislation to help protect some of these communities’ and individuals’ right to social protection. A human rights-based approach to social protection, and the development of social protection floors, can transform the lives of LGBTQI people, helping making all societies inclusive ones in which all members fully participate, and in which no one is left behind.

Legal Instruments

An Act for the recognition and registration of the gender of a person and to regulate the effects of such a change, as well as the recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person (Act No. XI of 2015)

This act recognizes the gender of a person and regulates the effects of such a change, as well as the recognition and protection of the sex characteristics of a person.

Legal Cases

LGBTQI+ Right to Housing in the United States

The Law The United States’ Fair Housing Act (FHA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619 Section 3604(b) states that “…it is unlawful [t]o discriminate against any person in the terms, conditions, or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in connection therewith, because of race, colour, religion, sex, […]

Resources

Denied Work: An Audit On Job Discrimination On The Basis Of Gender Identity In South-East Asia

This report looks into employment discrimination faced by transgender people while seeking employment in four countries in South-East Asia– Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. The findings from this study provide direct evidence of discrimination against trans people in job hiring practices in the region.

Equal Access to Public Restrooms

This brief outlines transgender and gender non-conforming persons’ right to adequate sanitation facilities in public spaces.

Workplace Rights and Wrongs

This brief outlines transgender and gender-noncomforming person’s rights at work.

Implementing Comprehensive HIV and STI Programmes with Transgender People: practical guidance for collaborative interventions 

This tool describes how services can be designed and implemented to be acceptable and accessible to transgender women. To accomplish this, respectful and ongoing engagement with them is essential. This tool gives particular attention to programmes run by transgender people themselves, in contexts where this is possible. It is itself the product of collaboration among […]

Guidelines for the Primary and Gender-Affirming Care of Transgender and Gender Nonbinary People

These guidelines aim to address these disparities by equipping primary care providers and health systems with the tools and knowledge to meet the health care needs of their transgender and gender nonconforming patients. Link to Guidelines

Social Protection for LGBT People: Challenges and good practices

How does social protection address the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people? How can a rights-based approach be used to ensure that their needs are fully taken into account? In this video, Andrés Scagliola from the Social Development Department of the City of Montevideo discusses challenges and successes in mobilizing human rights instruments […]

Policy Perspective: Linking Social Protection and Human Rights

How can governments fulfil their obligation to provide social protection and respect the rights of all? Andrés Scagliola from the Government of the City of Montevideo, Uruguay, describes his experience developing and implementing policy that safeguards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people’s right to social protection.

TOP 20 MAINTENANCE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF HUSBANDS:

📍📍📍📍📍📍

*TOP 20 MAINTENANCE CASE LAWS IN FAVOUR OF HUSBANDS:-*

1. *Reduced interim maintenance*. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

2. *Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband.* (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

3. *Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife.* (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

4. *Husband can get PF details of wife.* (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

5. *Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost.* (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

6. *Children have to maintain their parents.* (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

7. *Conditions when maintenance to be paid.* (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

8. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

9. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband.* (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

10. *Maintenance on actual earning.* (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

11. *Maintenance denied for working wife.* (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

 12. *No maintenance for capable and working wife.* (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

 13. *No maintenance to earning wife, only to children.* (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

 14. *No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC.* (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

15. *No Maintenance to wife, but only to child.* (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

16. *No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

 17. *Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself.* (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

18. *No Maintenance if wife is working.* (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

19. *Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance.* (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.

20. *All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid.* (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

Is Consent of the Husband Needed for an Abortion in India?

Abortion Gender Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination Sexual and Reproductive Rights India

Is Consent of the Husband Needed for an Abortion in India?

by Aradhana Cherupara Vadekkethil | Feb 17, 2018

author profile picture

About Aradhana Cherupara Vadekkethil

Aradhana is a DPhil candidate, with the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. Her research focuses on rape  adjudication in India; she seeks to highlight through her research how culturally dominant notions, underlying preconceptions and prejudices about rape percolate through the talk of these cases in a variety of settings and shape their outcome. Her research is supervised by Professor Laura Hoyano. Prior to the DPhil, she read for the Master of Philosophy in Law (2019) and Bachelor of Civil Law (2018) at the University of Oxford, and the BA LLB (Hons.) at the National Law University, Delhi (India). She was awarded the Modern Law Review Scholarship in 2021 and the Gopal Subramaniam Scholarship (Somerville College, University of Oxford) in 2019. She is Editor of the Oxford Human Rights Hub Blog, Associate Editor with the Indian Law Review and was Co-Chairperson of the Oxford Pro Bono Publico (2018-19).

Citations

Aradhana Cherupara Vadekkethil “Is Consent of the Husband needed for an Abortion in India?” (OxHRH Blog, 17 February 2018), <https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/ is-consent-of-the-husband needed- for-an-abortion-in-india> [date of access].

The Indian Supreme Court on 27th October, 2017 in the case of Anil Kumar Malhotra v. Ajay Pasricha, dismissed a man’s petition who was seeking damages from his wife as she had terminated her pregnancy without his consent. The husband had contended that the pregnancy was illegal as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) 1971 as the specific consent of the father of the unborn child was not obtained and that the termination was without any medical need. He had filed a suit against his wife, her parents, her brother and the medical practitioner, claiming Rs 30 lakhs as damages for the mental agony caused due to the ‘illegal termination’ which was ‘cruel, illegal and unethical’ according to the husband.

In 2011, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had deliberated on “whether the express consent of the husband is required for unwanted pregnancy to be terminated by a wife?” The Court noted that under Section 3(4)(b) of the MTP Act, only the consent of the pregnant woman undergoing the termination of pregnancy is required. Moreover, the Court held that an unwanted pregnancy as per Explanation II to Section 3(2) of the Act is a grave injury to the physical or mental health of the woman. The Court remarked in paragraph 17 that “if the wife has consented to matrimonial sex and created sexual relations with her own husband, it does not mean that she has consented to conceive a child. It is the free will of the wife to give birth to a child or not. The husband can not compel her to conceive and give birth to his child”. The Court further remarked in paragraph 22 of this High Court judgment that “A woman is not a machine in which raw material is put and a finished product comes out. She should be mentally prepared to conceive, continue the same and give birth to a child” and concluded that the husband has no right to compel his wife not to terminate the pregnancy and that he had no right to sue his wife for compensation. This was a progressive step by the High Court as it considered the woman the “best judge” of whether or not to continue with a pregnancy. The Court recognised the personal right of a woman to continue with the pregnancy or abort the foetus given that it is her who must be to mentally prepared to carry out a pregnancy.

The Supreme Court on 27th October 2017 in Anil Kumar Malhotra v. Ajay Pasricha dismissed the appeal filed by the husband against the Punjab & Haryana’s High Court decision. By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision which laid down that the woman has the right to decide about the abortion and that consent of the husband is not required as per the Act. The judgment of Malhotra is a progressive step in recognising and implementing the reproductive rights of women because it recognises their autonomy.

While the Supreme Court’s judgment of upholding the Punjab & Haryana’s High Court decision is a reason for celebration, there is more to be achieved in this area. The MTP Act is 46 years old and has not been amended despite medical advancements made in the field. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2014 notes the medical advancements made in this field and one of the clauses provides that a healthcare provider may, “in good faith”, decide to allow abortion between 20 and 24 weeks if, among other conditions, the pregnancy involves substantial risks to the mother or child, or if it is “alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape”. The 2014 Bill has been pending in Parliament since the past three years. And in such situations, women or young girls are left to the mercy of the Court’s decision in case the pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks.

Thus, while Supreme Court’s dismissal of the husband’s petition in the case of Anil Kumar Malhotra, is a progressive step; it represents only one step in developing the law in line with the rights of women.

സ്ത്രീധന കേസിന്റെ പേരിൽ സർവീസിൽ നിന്ന് പിരിച്ചു വിടപ്പെടുന്ന ആദ്യത്തെ സംസ്ഥാന സർക്കാർ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥനാണ് കിരൺ കുമാർ

വിസ്മയ കേസിലെ കുറ്റാരോപിതൻ, ഭർത്താവ് മോട്ടോർ വെഹിക്കിൾ ഇൻസ്‌പെക്ടർ കിരൺ കുമാറിനെ സർവീസിൽ നിന്ന് പിരിച്ചുവിട്ടതായി  ഗതാഗതമന്ത്രി ആൻറണി രാജു തിരുവനന്തപുരത്ത് വാർത്താസമ്മേളനം നടത്തി പ്രഖ്യാപിച്ചിരുന്നു.  ഈ പിരിച്ചു വിടലിന് അടിസ്ഥാനമായി അദ്ദേഹം ഉദ്ധരിച്ചത് 1960-ലെ കേരള സിവിൾ സർവീസ് നിയമം ആണ്. 

എന്താണ് ഈ 1960 ലെ സിവിൽ സർവീസ് നിയമം?

1960 ലാണ് കേരള സിവിൽ സർവീസസ് (ക്ലാസിക്കേഷൻ കൺട്രോൾ ആന്റ് അപ്പീൽ) നിയമം പാസ്സാവുന്നത്. ഈ നിയമത്തിന്റെ പതിനൊന്നാം വകുപ്പ് പരാമർശിക്കുന്നത് സർക്കാർ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥർ ഏതെങ്കിലും കേസുകളിൽ പ്രതികളായാൽ നേരിടേണ്ടി വരുന്ന അച്ചടക്ക നടപടികളെക്കുറിച്ചാണ്. ചെയ്യുന്ന കുറ്റത്തിന്റെ ഗൗരവത്തിന് അനുസൃതമായിട്ടാണ് അച്ചടക്ക നടപടിയുടെ കടുപ്പവും ഉണ്ടാവുക. ഈ നിയമത്തിന്റെ  ഒന്ന് മുതൽ നാലുവരെയുള്ള ഉപ വകുപ്പുകളിൽ ശാസന മുതൽ പിഴ വരെയുള്ള ചെറിയ നടപടികളാണ് ഉള്ളതെങ്കിൽ, അഞ്ചു മുതൽ അങ്ങോട്ടേക്ക് തരംതാഴ്ത്തൽ, നിർബന്ധിത വിരമിക്കൽ, പെൻഷൻ കുറവുചെയ്യൽ, സർവീസിൽ നിന്ന് നീക്കം ചെയ്യൽ, പിരിച്ചു വിടൽ തുടങ്ങി പലതുമുണ്ട്.

സിവിൽ സർവീസ് നിയമത്തിന്റെ ഈ വകുപ്പ് പ്രകാരം ഒരു ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥനെ നീക്കം ചെയ്യും മുമ്പ്, പ്രസ്തുത വ്യക്തിക്കെതിരെ ഇതേ നിയമത്തിന്റെ പതിനഞ്ചാം വകുപ്പിൽ പറയും പ്രകാരം കൃത്യവും വിശദവുമായ ഒരു വകുപ്പുതല അന്വേഷണം നടത്താൻ സർക്കാരിന് ബാധ്യതയുണ്ട്. ആദ്യഘട്ടത്തിൽ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥന് ആരോപണങ്ങൾ വ്യക്തമാക്കിക്കൊണ്ട് മെമോ നൽകപ്പെടും. ഈ വകുപ്പിന്റെ അന്വേഷണ ചട്ടങ്ങൾ പാലിച്ചുകൊണ്ട്‌ നടത്തപ്പെട്ട സുതാര്യമായ ഒരു അന്വേഷണത്തിൽ സംശയാതീതമായി കുറ്റം ചെയ്തെന്ന് തെളിഞ്ഞതിനെത്തുടർന്നാണ് പിരിച്ചുവിടൽ എന്നാണ് മന്ത്രി അറിയിച്ചത്.

ഇങ്ങനെ ഈ എട്ടാം ഉപവകുപ്പ് പ്രകാരം നീക്കം ചെയ്യുന്നത് തുടർന്ന് രണ്ടാമത് ഒരു സർക്കാർ ജോലിക്ക് ശ്രമിക്കുന്നതിൽ നിന്നുകൂടി പ്രസ്തുത ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥന് അയോഗ്യതയായി മാറും. പിരിച്ചു വിടപ്പെടുന്നയാൾക്ക് പെൻഷൻ, ഡിസിആർജി തുടങ്ങിയവയും നിഷേധിക്കപ്പെടും. ഇങ്ങനെ ഈ നിയമം പ്രകാരം സ്ത്രീധനത്തിന്റെ പേരിൽ ഭാര്യ മരണപ്പെട്ടു എന്ന കാരണം കാണിച്ച് സർവീസിൽ നിന്ന് പിരിച്ചു വിടപ്പെടുന്ന ആദ്യത്തെ സംസ്ഥാന സർക്കാർ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥനാണ് കിരൺ കുമാർ എന്നും മന്ത്രി പറഞ്ഞു.   

ഭാര്യയുടെ സമ്മതമില്ലാത്ത ലൈംഗിക ബന്ധം ബലാത്സംഗമെന്ന് ഹൈക്കോടതി

ഭാര്യയുടെ സമ്മതമില്ലാത്ത ലൈംഗിക ബന്ധം ബലാത്സംഗമെന്ന് ഹൈക്കോടതി

ഭാര്യയുടെ ആഗ്രഹവും അനുമതിയുമില്ലാതെയുള്ള ലൈംഗിക ബന്ധം ബലാൽസംഗമാണന്നും വിവാഹമോചനത്തിന് മതിയായ കാരണമാണന്നും കോടതി വ്യക്തമാക്കി.

ഭാര്യയുടെ ആഗ്രഹവും അനുമതിയുമില്ലാതെയുള്ള ലൈംഗിക ബന്ധം ബലാൽസംഗമാണന്ന് ഹൈക്കോടതി. ഇത് വിവാഹമോചനത്തിന് മതിയായ കാരണമാണന്നും കോടതി വ്യക്തമാക്കി. നിർബന്ധിത ലൈംഗിക ബന്ധം ഭാര്യയോടുള്ള ക്രൂരതയാണന്നും കോടതി ഉത്തരവിൽ വ്യക്തമാക്കി.

സ്ത്രീധന പീഡനവും ലൈംഗീക പീഡനവും ചൂണ്ടിക്കാട്ടി കുടുംബ കോടതി അനുവദിച്ച വിവാഹമോചന ഹർജികൾക്കെതിരായ ഭർത്താക്കൻമാരുടെ അപ്പീലുകൾ തള്ളിക്കൊണ്ടാന്ന് ജസ്റ്റീസുമാരായ എ.മുഹമ്മദ് മുഷ്താഖും കൗസർ എടപ്പഗത്തും അടങ്ങുന്ന ഡിവിഷൻ ബഞ്ചിൻ്റെ ഉത്തരവ്.

കൊച്ചി: വിവാഹ നിയമങ്ങളിൽ പൊളിച്ചെഴുത്തു വേണമെന്നും ഹൈക്കോടതി അഭിപ്രായപ്പെട്ടു. വിവാഹത്തിനും വിവാഹമോചനത്തിനുമായി മതേതരമായ പൊതു നിയമം വേണമെന്നും ഇത് കാലഘട്ടത്തിൻ്റെ ആവശ്യമാണന്നും ഹൈക്കോടതി അഭിപ്രായപ്പെട്ടു. സമുദായ നിയമങ്ങൾക്കനുസരിച്ചുള്ള വിവാഹമാകാമെങ്കിലും എല്ലാ വിവാഹങ്ങളും നിയമ വിധേയമാക്കണമെന്നും കോടതി നിർദേശിച്ചു.