In a case involving a woman’s right to avail of maternity benefits for a child that is not biologically hers, the Supreme Court made some stimulating observations about the definition of family. It said that a family may take the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships, adding that these “manifestations” may not be typical but they are as real as their traditional counterparts and “equally deserving not only of protection under the law but also of the benefits available under social welfare legislation”. The comments are significant when viewed in light of a judgment delivered days earlier by the Kerala High Court in which it claimed that the court was worried about the “conscience of the society” because live-in relationships, which, the court said, were influenced by the “use and throw” culture, are on the rise. The presence of such contradictory attitudes on the subject is unfortunate, not least because the ambiguity could fuel regressive attitudes towards the rights of consenting adults in a nation where the freedom of choice, even though the Constitution guarantees it, cannot be assumed to be a given.

The importance of the apex court’s observation stems from its willingness to recognise the need to undo the embedded — constricting? — links between ‘family’ and ‘marriage’. It also holds out hope of a more equal world where queer unions merit recognition — several petitions on the matter are pending before the apex court — and single mothers and live-in couples receive social welfare benefits. After all, the heteronormative idea of a family has far-reaching implications on the everyday lives of those who are not part of such structures. Various surveys have shown that people in live-in relationships, widowed or single parents and people in queer relationships are unable to claim benefits — insurance policies, residency and so on — that heterosexual married couples are entitled to. Tamil Nadu allowed single women without families or those separated from their husbands to get ration cards only as recently as last year. The bureaucracy, the nodal institution to facilitate such benefits, is tempered with this conservatism, making it difficult for this constituency — queer couples, single mothers and so on — to avail of their rightful benefits. The apex court has echoed a progressive stance on how to frame the idea of a family. Earlier, the tempo was sustained by another judgment by the Supreme Court that said even single, unmarried women should have access to abortion. What is now required is to translate this outlook into tangible legal protection.