The court noted that a statement from a key witness supported the couple’s claim that they had been living together for about ten years and had even “married” in a temple.

“The aforesaid statement indicates a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiffs alleging that they are in a same-sex relationship. It is expressly stated that they wanted to have a child, which was biologically impossible. In the current state of affairs, they would also not be able to adopt a minor child…

…In this context, at worst, the plaintiffs can be said to have taken an illegal approach to satisfy their desire to have a child by conniving with the co-defendants to take the minor child away from the parents. This may show the ingredients of the offense under Section 363 of the IPC which is bailable“, the Court observed.