The right of a major woman to enter into a consensual relationship with a transman was upheld by the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. BHARTIDASAN in the case of M.Kavin Thamizh v. The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram and others. (Habeas Corpus Petition Case No. 1082 of 2021)
FACTS OF THE CASE: Brief facts of the case are as follows; The petitioner was born as ‘Lavanya’, a woman and subsequently identified as a Trans man. After getting a doctor’s opinion, the petitioner started hormone therapy. After that, the petitioner changed his name to ‘Kavin Tamizh’ and also effected a Gazette Notification to that effect. In the year 2018, the detenue Revathi connected with the petitioner. The petitioner also disclosed to the detenue about his gender as a “Transman”. After that, both the petitioner and the detenue entered into a relationship, which is both protected and permitted under the Constitution. The petitioner and the detenue loved each other and decided to continue their consensual relationship. At present, the petitioner is working in Chennai Metro (KCIC). In the meantime, on 27.04.2021, the detenue Revathi left her home after sending letters to the Kadaladi Police Station and Superintendant of Police, Ramnadapuram, intimating that she left the parental home and wanted to lead a life of her own. The detenue joined the petitioner at Madurai, and both of them left for Chennai. Now, the petitioner found accommodation for the detenue Revathi at Pallavaram Keezhakattalai Ladies Hostel. Subsequently, on 08.05.2021, the parents of the detenue Revathi came along with Police officials, forcibly separated them, and took the detenue Revathi along with them. Alleging that the actions of the respondent police are exfacie illegal and the detenue Revathi has been illegally detained by the third respondent against her will, a Habeas Corpus Petition was filed. On 11.08.2021, the respondent Police had produced the detenue Revathi before the Court. On enquiry, she stated that she had left with the petitioner on her own and then was willing to go with the petitioner only. Since the petitioner was not present, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed today, and the detenue was sent to a home, as she was not willing to go with her father.
JUDGEMENT: After reviewing the submissions of both the sides, the judge noted that the detenue, Revathi is a major and was willing to go with the petitioner, a trans man, of her own volition; the bench set her at liberty and permitted her to go along with the petitioner. The Court also opined that “the petitioner and the detenue entered into a relationship, which is both protected and permitted under the Constitution.” Considering the facts of the case, the Court noted that it was stated by both the partners that they had been living together for more than three years and that Revathi also stated that she wanted to live with her lover, knowing fully well that he was a trans man. Considering the facts of the case, the Court proceeded to direct the woman to be set free to live with her lover.
Judgement reviewed by – Abhinav Paul Mathew