ELON AND TRUMP, A SUPER RICH and well-known couple from Delhi, recently bought a house together in Lutyens. Elon’s the one paying the EMIs, while Trump took charge of the interiors. Their place became the go-to spot for fancy parties: think everyone from Khan Market to Amrita Shergill Marg showing up. They even adopted a French Bulldog named “Tesla” together.
For five years, things are smooth. But then, out of nowhere, Trump decides to bring a new partner into their relationship. Elon’s obviously not thrilled. And just like that, they’re in the middle of a very messy breakup. Now Trump wants Elon to pack up and leave. So, here’s the real question legally, what can Elon do? Let’s break it down.
Legally single and emotionally bankrupt
Under Indian law, same-sex couples like Elon and Trump would fall into the legal Bermuda Triangle; Love goes in, rights never come out. There’s no recognition of same-same marriage, civil unions, or even live-in partnerships in any real sense. So, Elon is kind of stuck.
Under Indian law, same-sex couples like Elon and Trump would fall into the legal Bermuda Triangle; Love goes in, rights never come out.
He can’t:
a) Legally end the relationship
b) Ask for alimony or support
c) Split the house or other stuff they bought together
d) Get legal protection if things turn toxic
e) Or even fight for custody of Tesla (their beloved pet)
Since there was no legal marriage, Elon can’t file for divorce. The Special Marriage Act doesn’t include same-sex couples. Neither does the Hindu Marriage Act. And the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Supriyo v. Union of India basically confirmed that. So, from a legal point of view? This breakup never even happened.
Remember how Elon and Trump lived together for five years, played house, adopted a dog, hosted parties, and built a life? Well, legally, none of that counts. In 2013 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma gave some recognition to straight live-in couples by calling it a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” That means they might get some protection under laws like the Domestic Violence Act. But for Elon and Trump? Nada. Because they’re a same-sex couple, the law offers them zero recognition. Elon can’t claim a share in the Lutyens house. He has no right to stay. No protection under the DV Act if things get ugly. At most, if Elon was in physical danger, the courts might give him police protection, but only under Article 21 (right to life), not because he was someone’s partner. So even though Elon and Trump acted like spouses; shared EMIs, furniture, Netflix account, maybe even a joint savings account, in the eyes of the law, Elon is just a glorified flat mate.
Property and financial rights
Since India doesn’t recognise queer marriages or civil unions, same-sex couples have to treat shared assets like co-owners or business partners. Basically, love has to be documented like a deal. Now if the Lutyens bungalow is in Trump’s name, Elon has zero claim, even if he paid for the whole thing. No presumption of joint ownership unless BOTH names are on the deed. What remedy does Elon have now? His only option is to file a Civil Suit for declaration of property and permanent injunction on sale of the house by Trump. Love is love. But money is money. And the law only sees the latter if it’s on paper.
Baby, dog and the fiddle leaf fig – All gone
Now let’s say Elon and Trump weren’t just sharing a house, they were also raising a child together. Maybe the child was adopted, maybe born via surrogacy, or biologically through a donor. And of course, let’s not forget Tesla, their beloved dog, practically their first kid.
On every front, Indian law fails queer families. Start with adoption: only single individuals or married heterosexual couples can adopt under CARA guidelines. Queer couples? Not recognised. Surrogacy? Banned for LGBTQ+ couples under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Even if they manage to bring a child into their home, only one parent, usually the biological or adoptive one, gets legal status. The other parent, no matter how involved, is invisible in the eyes of the law. So when a breakup happens it all gets brutal. The non-legal parent will have no custody rights, no visitation, no say in the child’s education, health decisions, or future. You could have raised the child from birth, and it still wouldn’t matter. You have no legal standing. And Tesla? The law doesn’t even treat pets as family. They’re treated as property. So unless both names are on the adoption papers (if any exist), Trump could walk away with the dog, and Elon would have no legal right to see him again. You could have raised a whole family together; kid, dog, houseplants, the works. But in the eyes of Indian law, you’re just a flatmate with a broken heart and no claim to anything that actually mattered.
In the total absence of family law protections, queer couples in India are left to piece together a patchwork of legal hacks. What are the options? You can draft contracts like a cohabitation agreement, a financial arrangement, or ensure joint ownership if you’re buying property together. You might have to go to court with a civil suit for recovery of money, division of shared assets, or even for breach of trust if things go south. Wills and succession planning become crucial, because the law doesn’t see your partner as your next of kin by default. So without paperwork, they could be cut out entirely. And if your partner ends up in the ICU? Only a medical power of attorney gives you the right to make decisions or even be let in.
But all of this takes time, money, and a kind of emotional and legal preparedness that not every queer person can afford or should have to. The truth is, your love life shouldn’t need an entire legal toolkit just to exist safely. But here we are.
Instead of rushing to deliver a judgment, the Court could have passed a binding order for the committee’s formation with a fixed timeline and kept the matter pending.
Dear Supreme Court, you had one job:
In the end, I couldn’t help but wonder, was our Supreme Court really so powerless to protect queer couples like Elon and Trump? The answer is, clearly, no. So the real question is: what could the Supreme Court have done to protect Elon’s rights? In the Supriyo judgment, the Court noted that the Solicitor General had assured them that the Union government would form a committee, led by the Cabinet Secretary, to identify and define the entitlements of queer couples. The committee, they said, would include experts and queer community members and would carry out widespread consultations before making any recommendations. But here’s the problem: the Supreme Court didn’t set a deadline. No returnable date. No follow-up. The committee can now take its own sweet time, while queer people remain stuck in legal limbo, our lives and rights pushed to the bottom of the priority list. And it didn’t have to be this way.
Instead of rushing to deliver a judgment, the Court could have passed a binding order for the committee’s formation with a fixed timeline and kept the matter pending. It could have treated this like a continuing mandamus where the Court remains engaged, seeks updates from the Union, and ensures actual progress. Even if the full “bouquet of rights”, which the Petitioners argued for, wasn’t granted right away, the Court could’ve at least handed down a few petals — small but concrete legal recognitions while the larger discussion continued.
Yes, same-sex marriage isn’t explicitly outlawed in India and that puts the judiciary in a precarious position. But that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is helpless. The Constitution doesn’t stop working just because Parliament is slow. The flowery language in the judgment especially from the Hon’ble Chief Justice might sound good on paper, but without real legal recognition, protection, or relief, those words do nothing for queer people in real life. Love is love. But rights need more than poetry; they need action.
We don’t need special rights. We just need equal laws for marriage, for maintenance, for property, for parenting, for pain.
Even in death, you’re not family; unless you have the paperwork
To avoid this legal erasure, queer couples must carry an entire legal toolkit: contracts for cohabitation, civil suits for shared assets, wills to plan succession, powers of attorney for medical emergencies. These are not just inconvenient; they're expensive, inaccessible, and often culturally unacceptable.
Desi families rarely talk money, let alone signing contracts between lovers. Try explaining “Cohabitation Agreement” to your landlord or your mom? Courts don’t always treat these contracts with the same respect as formal family law. Even a great cohabitation agreement might not be enforceable if a judge is conservative or unclear on queer rights. Imagine drafting a will when you’re 28 because you’re scared your partner won’t be allowed into your ICU room? That’s not romance. That’s legal trauma.
Rights shouldn’t be a scavenger hunt:
The law demands legal foresight where heterosexual couples receive automatic protection. This patchwork workaround is not just unequal. It’s undignified. For Indian law to truly respect queer lives and loves, a structural overhaul is overdue. And this overhaul cannot stop at symbolic judgments. It must re-examine and amend the laws that systematically exclude queer families:
Vertical rights conferred by the State like adoption, surrogacy, succession, taxation, pensions, compassionate appointments, spousal privilege, and maintenance are automatically granted to heterosexual married couples. For queer couples, none of these rights apply, unless individually litigated. When a straight couple splits, there are state mechanisms to cushion the fall. Queer couples? No such safety net.
Horizontal rights in the private sphere like insurance, hospital access, bereavement leave, tenancy, joint banking, caregiving rights must move beyond the narrow confines of “legal marriage” and acknowledge diverse family forms. Straight couples get these by ticking a box. Queer couples have to fight for each right, often to no avail.
Fundamental rights like the right to liberty, dignity, autonomy, and equal treatment already part of our Constitution must be actively translated into law and policy. Heterosexual couples see these values realised through family laws and welfare entitlements. For queer people, they remain largely symbolic unless codified and enforced.
Elon and Trump might be fictional in this thought experiment, but the legal void they would fall into is real and it is inhabited every day by queer Indians across the country. Until the law starts recognising these relationships not as aberrations but as equal and deserving of full protection, queer love in India will remain a second-class citizen. We don’t need special rights. We just need equal laws for marriage, for maintenance, for property, for parenting, for pain. Until then, queer people will continue to love boldly, but live precariously.