US-based Indian techie marries gay partner in Maharashtra's Yavatmal, police orders investigation

A US-based Indian engineer married his gay partner in Maharashtra’s Yavatmal district on 30 December, days before Supreme Court decided to reconsider Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which has been used to decriminalise homosexuality. According to The Times of India report, police and the staff of the hotel, where the wedding took place, turned a blind eye, considering the legal ambiguity regarding gay marriages in India. Even though Superintendent of Police Amarsingh Jadhav first said he did not want to comment, he later said that he had ordered an investigation, said the report. The 40-year-old engineer pursued B-Tech from IIT-Bombay and presently lives in California, said this  India Today report. [caption id=“attachment_1753875” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] representational image. AFP[/caption] The engineer’s parents were against his sexual orientation, but he later succeeded in convincing them, added the report. According to Mumbai Mirror, the couple met in October 2016 via an online dating website and got engaged in a few months. The report added that the engineer’s parents resisted on the couple getting married in their hometown but they were firm on conducting the ceremony in Yavatmal. On Monday, a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra and comprising Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud had decided to re-examine the top court’s  earlier order upholding section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. “Our earlier order needs to be reconsidered,” Justice Misra had said. Section 377 of the IPC refers to ‘unnatural offences’ and says whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine. The petition in the present case was moved by five people who belong to the gay community. They had argued that they were affected by the judgment and since the Supreme Court had itself declared the Right to Privacy a Fundamental Right, they couldn’t be denied their right to sexual privacy. With inputs from agencies