LIST OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF

INDEX OF

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.. . . . . . ..6

STATEMENT OF 7

STATEMENT OF
......8
SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED..

ISSUE 1: DOES THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955 MEAN
ONLY BETWEEN A 'MAN' AND A 'BRIDE'?...................................1 1

ISSUE 2: DOES THE DEFINITION OF 'BRIDE' UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE HINDU

MARRIAGE ACT INCLUDE 'TRANSGENDER'?...................... . .....13

ISSUE 3: DOES THE SCOPE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO TRANSGENDER SEX

TEND TO OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS SUCH AS ADOPTION AND
14

ISSUE 4: WHETHER THE APPELANTS ARE ENTITLED THE RIGHT TO HAVE A

.16

PRAYER.. . . . ...19

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS

And

(1 Paragraph

2
 OF
S, Sec. Section

HMA Hindu Marriage Act

Versus

Hon'ble Honorable

Cons. Constitution

HSA Hindu succession Act

co. Company

Adop. Adoption

Private

Main t. Maintenance

Inc. Incorporated

vis-ü- vis When compared to

Ins. Institution

Inv. Invalid

Aggr. Aggrieved

Nullification

Poss. Possible

Reas<gn. Reassignment

HAMA Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act

TPA Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights)

Act, 2019

IND
EX AUTHORITIES

3
 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

. Constitution of India, 1949

Bare Acts
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

Legal Research Tools:

. Manupatra (https ://mobile. manupatra.in )
2. SCC online (https://www.scconline.com )
3. Ipleadera ( https://blog.ipleaders.in )
4. Indian Kannon ( https://indiankanoon.org )
Website Reference :
https://clpr.org in,'blog/breaking-new-ground-trans gender-persons-fundament al-right-
tomarry/ 2.

3. h tt ps://www.scconlinecom/blo g/post/2019/04/25/madras-hc-t ransgender- female- is-a-

brideunder-h indu-marriage-act -no-impediment-in-regist ration-of-t ransgenders-marriage/
4. h tt ps net. -u nder-the- inc) i an-const u t n-saysmadras -hi uh-coun/#

4
 OF
5. htt ps://ohrh. law. ox. ac.uk/an-indian-high-coufl-reco gnises-transgender- individuals-ri ght-
tomarry/
6. https://theprint.in/india/governance/t ransgenders -others-who-identify-as-women-w ill-now-
bebrides-u nder-h indu- marriage-act 1225545/
7. h : y.org/issues/resou -trams genderpeople
8. h tt ps://www.hrc.org/resources/understandi ng-the-t ransgender-commu nit y
9. https://indiankanoon.org/
10. htt ps://blog. ipleaders. in/national-legal-services-authority-vs-union-of-india-case-study/ 1 1.

5
 STATEMENT OF

JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Supreme court of Hindus under the Article-133, clause(l),
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

(l) 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 patty appealing to the Supreme Court under clause
(l) 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 atticle, 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.

FACTS

1. Rani and Sheela are transgenders, age 35 years and work as office assistants in
different corners of the city. Both live in Mehli with 20 transgenders under the refuge offered

6
 STATEMENT OF
by Shikhandi since last 10 years & manage their affairs through meagre salaries and begging.
Rani is unable to understand her sexuality and is constantly discriminated by her friends and
family.
2. Rani and Sheela fell in love eventually and go out together discreetly without
informing anybody after saving some money. They had also made plans to live together and
raise a child. Sheela's family discovered where she was living through some relatives. After a
scuffle between Sheela's friends and family, the family left after delivering threats towards both
Rani and Sheela. Shocked by the events, both Rani and Sheela become cautious and decided to
get married and try to move places as soon as possible
3. Rani's uncle Raju took a keen interest on Rani's well-being. When Rani was
abandoned, she stayed with Raju for a few years and continued to remain in touch after she
decided to live by herself. When Rani told Raju of Sheela and their plans to get married and
live together as a couple, Raju 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 Sheela's parents
visited Rani. After hearing about the scuffle, Raju went with Rani to a police station near his
house to seek protection for Rani and Sheela in case they were to encounter any danger.
4. Two weeks after the events with Sheela's family, Rani and Sheela 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 organization called 'Kutumba
Samiti' began to harass and threaten the newlyweds that they are violating the institution of
marriage and transgenders 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 transgenders. They approached the High Court of
Vataka for nullification of marriage. Hence, Rani and Sheela were aggrieved and decided to go
on appeal. Along with other transgender organizations in the country, they approached the
Supreme Court of Hindya to recognize their marriage and extend marital rights.

7
 STATEMENT OF

ISSUES

ISSUE
Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 m ean only
nbetween a 'man' and a 'bride'?

ISSUE 2:
Does the definition of 'bride' under Section 5 of the Hindu Maniage Act include
'transgender'?

ISSUE 3:
Does the scope of marriage between two transgender sex tend to other attendant rights
Such as adoption and maintenance?

ISSUE 4:
Whether the appellants are entitled the right to have a family?

8
 ARGUMENTS SUMMARY

1. THE DEFINITION MARRIAGE UNDER HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955

MEANS
ONLY BETWEEN A 'MAN' AND A 'BRIDE'.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon'ble Court of Hindya 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 ofthe 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.

2. THE RESPONDANTS CONTENTION OF INCLUSION OF

TRANSGENDERS IN
DEFINITION OF BRIDE IS ARBITRARY
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 Rani and Sheela does not have any legal sanction
as they do not fall within the definition ofthe term 'bride' under Section-5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. THE SCOPE OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO TRANSGENDERS DOES

NOT
EXTEND TO OTHER ATTENDANT RIGHTS SUCH AS ADOPTION
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.

9
 4. WHETHER APPELLANTS ARE ENTITLED RIGHT TO HAVE A FAMILY? It is to
bring before the Hon 'ble Supreme court of Hindya that it's undoubtable that the appellants are
not entitled to the Right to have a family especially in association of having or adopting a child as
a Transgender couple. It is to be noted that extending marriage and family rights to same-sex
couples would undercut the conventional purpose of marriage. Therefore, the appellants should
not be granted the right to have a family.

10
 ARGUMENTS ADV ANCED

1. Does the definition of marriage under Hindu Marriage Act-1955 mean only between a
'man' and a 'bride'?

1.1 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 persoms, has a great social significance, as it greatly enjoys rights and
obligatioms, 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 sectionl. 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,19SS
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, "a person
who is born as intersex but recognizes herself as a woman should be discussed as "bride"
under Section 5 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Thus, directing that the

Hinchl Marriage Act 1955

11
 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 woman . 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.

Funher, 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',

1.3 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 ofHindu 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, Moreover, 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, has

"Arun kumar vs Inspector Of 22 April, 2019

12
 from long usage obtained the force of law. It must be ancient, certain and reasonable"?
Allow ing same-sex marriages will hamper the customary rule of institution of
marriage and will be immoral and against public policy.

Burden of proof / Onus of proof - ne 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 patty 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.

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 mling 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 patties to
the marriage are transwomen does not stand on the basic grounds required for a marriage.

2. Does the definition of 'bride' under Section S of the Hindu Martiage 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

Ikrihar Rasad And CYs vs Balmiki Basad And (Ys 1975 AIR 733, 1975 SCR (2) 932
Marriage Act, "Section 5" which provides the conditions of a Hindu marriage, refers to

13
 "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 th e 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 bmsic 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 Amn
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 mailtenance
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.

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

14
 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.
S ince 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) ofthis 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 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 ac101i 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 270 -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
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.
15
4 Whether the appellants are entitled the light to have a ramily?
4.1 Is right to family a fundamental right of the appellants?
Alticle 21 of the constitution which embodies the right to life and personal liberty is the
most organic and progressive provision in the constitution. A plain reading into the
article 21 gives an insight that privacy is an important facet protected by article 21.
However, one cannot extend the scope ofthe article as per one's own whims and fancies
as the article is bounded by certain restrictions also. The article does not explicitly state
the right to family as a fundamental right. The Supreme court in the case of in the Navtej
Singh Johar V. UOI has said that "article 21 does not extend the right to privacy to
include a fundamental right in the nature of a right to marry by two individuals of same
gender". 5The appellants therefore cannot be extended the right to ad01* or to start a
family in the view of this article 21. Moreover, it is not "permissible" for the court to
override the legislative intent regard to limiting the legal recognition of marriage to
heterosexual couples. The fundamental right under Article 21 is subject to procedure
established by law and the same cannot be expanded to include the fundamental right for
a same sex marriage to be recognized under the laws of the country which in fact
mandate the corirary. Marriage between two individuals ofthe same gender is "neither
recognized nor accepted in any uncodified personal law or any codified statut01Y law"
and so does the right to start or have a family.

4.2 Denial does not amount to violation of article 14 and 15.

It is submitted before the hon'ble court that equality under article 14 means that all
persons should be treated equally no matter whether they are poor or rich, male or
female, upper caste or lower caste. This state cannot provide any special privileges to
anyone in the country. However, the court while giving the test of reasonable
classification in the case of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice Tendolkar, described the
jurispmdence of equaliy before the law and that there is a dependable assumption in
favor of the constitutionaliy of a rule and the burden is upon him who attacks it to

Navtej Jchar v. L.hiion of Incha.(2018) 10 SCC

demonstrate that there has been a reasonable transgression of established constitutional
standards. 6 Since article 14 forbids class legislation and not reasonable classification the
distinction between man, woman and transgender does not amount to irrational
classification. The court also upholding the validity of Sec 377 has stated that it did not
create any class and was applicable to both heterosexuals and homosexuals equally. It
criminalized the act and not the person. Also, Article 15 prohibits discrimination only on
16
 the ground of gender and not on the ground of sexual orientation. This is evident from
the fact that Article 15(3) provided for special provisions for women and children,
thereby implying that Article 15 covered only women in its ambit. Thereby the appellants
contention of violation of their rights under articles 14 and 15 does not stand on the
grounds of constitutional morality . There has been no discrimination made against the
appellants thereby no violation of their fundamental rights has occurred.

4.3 No violation to appellants right under Article 19 and 25.

Alticle 19 which talks about freedom of speech and expression comes with a set of
reasonable restrictions on such freedom. Freedom to express does not means one can
alter the boundaries of morality and decency. The test of compelling State interest was
satisfied and whether enforcement of morality is a sufficient enough reason to restrict
the fu ndamental rights. Since, decency or morality are constituted one of the grounds of
reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2).
Section. Ille court in the Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra held that the Courts
needed to balance between freedom of speech and public decency and morality. Hence,
allowing same sex marriages is against the fundamental principle of morality and
decency. It is to be noted that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could
undercut the conventional purpose of marriage. Also, monogamous heterosexual
marriages contend that same-sex relationships cannot be considered marriages because
marriages, by definition, necessarily involves the uniting of two members of the
opposite sex.

4.4 Inferior family argument

Another reasoning behind not allowing same-sex couples to adopt is that every child
must be able to know the value of both a mother and a father. The children of same-sex
couple are bound to feel different than other children in the society since they will not
have traditional mother and father couples as their parents. Thus same-sex couples

Shri Ram Krishna Daimia vs Shri Justice S. R Taldolkar 1958 AIR 538. 1959 SCR 279
'Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & CYs I I December, 2013
should be denied the right to adopt as the child should not be raised in an "inferior
family"
It is humbly submitted before this hon'ble court that the appellants cannot be granted any extended
rights to family and maintenance as the appellants are not regarded as a couple or person who under the
law have a right to start a family.

17
 PRAYER

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

DECLARE that Rani and Sheela are not entitled to marriage, ad011ion and maintenance
as per Hindu laws.

HOLD & ADJUDGE that Transgenders are not covered under the definition of 'bride'
under Hindu Succession Act, 1955 and Rani and Sheela 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 HINDYA may pass any other order or decree as it deems
in the interest of justice, equO', and good conscience.

Andfor this act ofkindness, the petitioners shall as duty bound ever humbly pray.
Place: HINDYA
Date: 14th SEPTEMBER,21
Respectfully Submitted
Sid
Counsel for the Respondent

18
20