A Catch-22 for the Queer community: Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

**Divyanshi Sonkeria

After the fundamental right to marry was denied to same-sex couples in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v Union of India (“Supriyo”), the state has failed to legally recognize LGBTQIA+ (LGBT) relationships in any form. As a result, queer couples are unable to lead dignified lives as partners. This has created a post-Supriyo vacuum where the state recognizes that persons belonging to the LGBT community are entitled to their fundamental rights, but at the same time fails to legalize their relationships through policy making. 

As a result, various petitions are being filed in High Courts by queer individuals seeking clarity on issues such as Right to form a Family, Tax exemptions and other similar benefits that are given to heterosexual partners being married or living together. 

On 22 May 2025, the Madras High Court, in M.A v. State affirmed that same-sex couples who are in a live-in relationship can constitute a family. In this case, a queer woman was detained by her family because she was in a relationship with another woman. The detainee’s partner filed a Habeas Corpus Writ Petition to seek protection for her partner. 

The decision was based on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Devu G Nair v. The State of Kerala which laid guidelines for courts in Habeas Corpus cases relating to LGBT individuals. The court based its guidelines on safeguarding the dignity of the detained person as well as the petitioner, without moral counselling or unnecessary probing into the relationship between them. 

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud reasoned that: 

“Social morality laden with homophobic or transphobic views or any personal predilection of the judge or sympathy for the natal family must be eschewed. The court must ensure that the law is followed in ascertaining the free will of the detained or missing person; i. If a detained or missing person expresses their wish to not go back to the alleged detainer or the natal family, then the person must be released immediately without any further delay”

Various other petitions are pending before High Courts aiming to recognize and legitimize queer relationships. The plea filed in Delhi High Court in Arshiya Takkar v. Union of India and Ors. seeks framing of guidelines to recognize non-heterosexual partner of a patient as their medical representative. In Payio Ashiho vs Union of India, the petition filed by a  same-sex couple challenges the constitutional validity of Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax (IT) Act, seeking inclusion under the term “spouse” for tax exemption. 

It is unclear to determine if High Courts will necessarily take a pro-LGBT stance in the final judgement of these cases. However, an emerging judicial trend can be seen owing to the assertion of rights by the queer community. The status quo remains that individuals belonging to the queer community are left without protection of the law in areas of Maintenance, Custody and Intimate-Partner Violence (“IPV”) that remain unseen both in law and within the queer community. The irony is that the state accepts that LBTQ individuals have a “Right to Love” but in the same breath denies them the “Right to be Safe within that Love” in both legislative governance and judicial rulings. 

This article will focus specifically on Intimate-Partner Violence in same-sex relationships outlining the core-issue and analysing the current socio-legal scenario. I argue that the lack of a legal framework governing IPV creates a Catch-22 paradox for same-sex couples. On one hand they must assert the autonomy and private nature of their relationship and on the other hand, they must seek state intrusion to regulate violence and abuse within their relationships. Increasing the risk of fracturing the legal recognition for the LGBT community obtained thus far. This raises the question: Is recognition without any substantial safeguards of law, sustainable for the future of the queer community? 

Further that, if we are to make policy on IPV for same-sex couples, our fundamental understanding as a society of viewing IPV through a heteronormative-lens should be unlearnt and dismantled.

I. The extent of IPV in same-sex relationships

Research on same-sex violence remains abysmally low. The majority of findings focus on western countries. Research findings suggest that the prevalence of IPV in the queer-community is equivalent to or higher than the general population. About 61.1% of bisexual women and 43.8% of lesbian women and 37.3% of bisexual men and 26.0% of gay men have experienced IPV in their lifetime, nearly double than that of heterosexual women (35.0%-36.0%). In 2024, a research conducted on violence against gay and bisexual men across six Indian cities revealed that about 78.7% of gay men 44% of bisexual men have experienced violence in their intimate relationships with other men. Additionally, Muslim respondents were 2.6 times more likely to face sexual violence compared to their Hindu counterparts.

Research also shows that abuse is wrongly perceived as  rare in queer-relationships, especially those involving women in same-sex relationships. This misconception contributes to the normalization of abuse, as survivor’s accounts are frequently met with disbelief or dismissed altogether. 

“Is there social legitimacy for our relationships in this country? Nobody accepts our relationships, so there is no space for us to talk about the violence we face in our relationships,” asks A, a 29-year-old Bisexual woman, 

Abuse can take various forms such as physical, emotional, sexual and financial. However, in same-sex relationships, IPV may arise from a range of intersecting factors, including class inequalities, internalized homophobia, and sexual dynamics. Sexual Minority Stressors (“SMS”) is a model developed by Meyer to explain the additional stressors faced by stigmatized groups that are not experienced by individuals outside the group. 

The foundation of minority stress theory lies in the hypothesis that sexual minority health disparities are produced by excess exposure to social stress faced by sexual minority populations due to their stigmatized social status (relative to heterosexual populations). 

These stressors are thus unique to individuals same-sex relationships and can be categorized as internalized (internalized homophobia, disclosure, stigma consciousness) or externalized (experiences of violence, discrimination, harassment) or both, leading towards high rates of IPV. 

For many their chosen families and partners are sources of refuge and safety. Facing violence in these situations has a long-lasting impact on queer individuals, which goes unaddressed in public discourse.

“I felt like I was like my mother. She suffered through domestic violence and never complained about it. I felt weak. I felt like I was a loser” says T, a 30-year-old queer person.

Personal stories in India on violence in queer relationships point towards stressors including caste, class, religion and disability that are already structural barriers for vulnerable and marginalized communities. Thus, persons with intersectional identities are disproportionately and uniquely affected by violence. 

II. Why is the queer community silent?

This decade has witnessed queer assertion in spheres of politics, society, and law. The Supreme Court has recognized that homosexuality is a natural variation of human sexuality in Naz Foundation v. Govt of NCT of Delhi also holding that Gender Identity and self-expression is basic to human dignity. 

Queer spaces and organizations are steadily increasing in cities, creating spaces for queer individuals to voice their stories. There is no doubt that an enormous amount of effort has been put into reaching this point in history. But, are the existing oppressive structures, invading queer spaces leading to silence over IPV?

Firstly, Indian queer spaces are dominated by upper-caste and upper-class influence who, under the guise of a certain aesthetic propagate systems of caste and class hierarchy. By and large, the tone of the Indian queer movement has been set by upper-caste Hindus, who often become the leading voice in the movement and are able to represent the entire community at influential spheres. Discourses surrounding the intersectionality of caste and sexuality are sidelined in queer-urban spaces. Thus, marginalized people not only face discrimination within the community, but also are alienated from the movement.

Dhiren Borisa writes in an essay titled Hopeful Rantings of a Dalit-Queer Person “As Dalit Bahujan Adivasi (DBA) queers, we know where our solidarities lie. For we have been historically denied the respectability on the backs of which rests this victory that we celebrate. For many of us “coming-out” as Dalit has been more difficult a journey than “coming-out” as gays.”

As a result, the LGBT movement suffers from a narrowing effect. That hinders inclusivity of diverse voices. DBA queer individuals are unable to fit into the privileged aesthetic of the queer movement. Family and communion is but a microcosm of the society. Thereby, abuse in the form of caste, class or religious oppression within relationships goes unaddressed. 

Secondly, there is a political downside in asserting same-sex violence, as it risks reinforcement of negative stereotypes about the community and becomes an argument for invalidating basic human rights to the entire LGBT community. Various right-winged groups in the US have weaponized the issue to argue that violence is an inherent flaw of being gay, and hence the queer community, as a whole must be denied human rights. This creates a dichotomy for the community, who is at the threshold of judicial recognition. As for same-sex couples to gain protections in their relationships they must first assert the private nature of their relationship and in the same breath invite, or demand, state intrusion, or protection.

Thirdly, we as a society fail to comprehend IPV without a gendered lens. The legal as well as societal understanding of domestic violence always views men as the batterers and women as victims. Same-sex violence obliterates this understanding.  Gender is only one proxy for power, it represents only one vector of oppression-race, class, caste, religion, ability, and sexual orientation are others. 

Our current legal architecture, namely The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) plays into the Ideal-victim theory proposed by Nils Christie, which posits that victims possessing specific key attributes such as being weaker than the perpetrator, being engaged in virtuous activities has a significant influence on society, public opinion and policy.

Same-sex relationships directly challenge this understanding as gender non-conforming individuals do not fit into the ideal victim archetype. Coercive forms of violence, such as threats to “out” a person’s sexual identity, deliberate misgendering, gender-based humiliation and extreme forms such as conversion therapies are forms of abuse unique to the queer community.

Therefore, to understand IPV in same-sex relationships, the current heteronormative understanding of violence must be systematically unlearned and re-examined at a fundamental level. Our legal jurisprudence must evolve simultaneously to recognize factors other than gender that may make a person more vulnerable to abuse and recognize forms of abuse that exclusively and uniquely affect the queer community.

III. Current Legal Scenario in India

Indian law offers no protection to same-sex couples as of now. The decriminalization of Section 377 in the Indian Penal Code as a result of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and the lack of an analogous provision in the new Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) leaves gay men and transgender men without adequate legal protection against sexual violence.  In a paper by Michelle Marie Johns and colleagues, upon examination of gender and power in gay men with regards to Sexual Positional Identities (SPIs). It was found that distinctions between perceptions of “tops” or “bottoms” within society and within relationships create a dysfunctional power imbalance. This perception stereotypically views “bottoms” as weaker and submissive in the entire ecosystem of relationships and can be a contributing factor in sexual violence committed towards men in same-sex relationships.

While, transgender women can seek interim maintenance in domestic violence cases, as per the judgement in Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble @ Sakshi Vithal and can also file complaint under 498A of IPC as per Vishwanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh.  These judgements operate only within heteronormative frameworks dismissing entirely women in same-sex relationships who face violence.

IV. Policy Recommendations and Analysis

Same-sex couples need legal protection that caters to the distinct and unique needs of queer individuals. The legislature can take steps to amend the DV act or institute a new law specifically governing queer relationships as a whole. In light of Supriyo the Vidhi Centre for legal policy made policy recommendations titled “Queering the law: Beyond Supriyo” on various facets of queer inclusion. The recommendations pertaining to IPV are based on widening definitions of “complainant” to include all gender/sexual identities and reforming the definition of violence to include experiences unique to queer relationships. Such as:

A. Outing or threats of outing a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity;

B. Deliberate misgendering;

C. Forced attempts to “correct” gender expression (e.g., cutting hair, preventing access to gender-affirming resources);

D. Conversion therapy and corrective rape;

E. Coercive “gender-normalizing” surgeries;

F. Identity-based humiliation and derogatory remarks;

G. Restriction of movement or access to supportive communities.

The policy brief also includes procedural safeguards such as sensitization programs to be given to authorities including but not limited to police personnel and Magistrates. It also incorporates rehabilitative measures focusing on safety providing shelter, legal and medical aid to survivors.

These policy recommendations address the legal framework but they also require a jurisprudential viewpoint to operate from. With the lack of a clear and definitive jurisprudence in procedural mechanism, the letter of the law is likely to fall flat instead of being of help to the survivors.

Hence, a shift in the State’s objective, is an essential preliminary step before framing definitions and prescribing punishments. Another important method to draft policy would be to involve stakeholders from the queer community to better understand the nuances of violence and gender-identity. 

In 1991, Milwaukee  police responded to a 911 call from concerned neighbours. The caller to 911 said “he’s buck naked. He has beaten up…he is really hurt…he needs some help” The police who arrived dismissed the matter and described their encounter as “Intoxicated Asian naked male was returned to his sober boyfriend.” Later the public learned that the caller was a young man named Konerak Sinthasomphone and his “sober boyfriend” was Jeffrey Dahmer. Konerak was the thirteenth of Dahmer’s seventeen victims.  

Hence, even in certain states in the USA where there are existing same-sex domestic violence laws in place, victims hesitate to seek help from authorities. Sensitization programs do not adequately ensure protection in times of crisis for queer individuals facing violence, as their effectiveness is ultimately dependent on the behaviours and attitudes of authorities. 

Therefore, legal reform is not sufficient. Victims must be able to ask for protection without fear of police violence or community rejection. Same-sex domestic violence forces us to unlearn and re-learn new patterns of power that overlay our society. There must be open discussions, and research that goes hand-in-hand with legal reform and policy changes.

**Divyanshi Sonkeria, 4th year law student pursuing B.A. LL.B.(Hons.) from University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU. 

**Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily align with the views of the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.