Transwoman In Heterosexual Marriage Entitled To Protection Under Section 498-A IPC | Andhra Pradesh High Court Affirms Right To Lodge Cruelty Complaint
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa held that a transwoman in a heterosexual marital relationship is entitled to protection under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, finding the allegations in the instant case vague and unsubstantiated, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, against all four accused under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petitioners in the case were accused persons named in C.C. No. 585 of 2022 pending before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The case stemmed from a criminal complaint lodged by a transgender woman (Respondent No. 2) against her husband (Accused No. 1), his parents (Accused Nos. 2 and 3), and a relative (Accused No. 4).
The complainant, originally assigned male at birth, had transitioned and was living as a woman. She claimed to have developed a romantic relationship with Accused No. 1 while residing in Chennai. Despite knowing her gender identity, Accused No. 1 continued the relationship. It was alleged that his parents initially objected but later consented to the union. The complainant and Accused No. 1 executed a Memorandum of Understanding and married at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad on 21.01.2019 in accordance with Hindu customs.
The complainant stated that she was given Rs. 10,00,000, 25 sovereigns of gold, 500 grams of silver, and household items worth Rs. 2,00,000 as dowry at the time of marriage. The couple resided at her parents' home in Ongole and periodically visited the home of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Chennai.
According to the complaint, the husband left their home on 11.03.2019 and ceased communication. When the complainant visited his parents’ residence in Chennai, she discovered that Accused No. 1 was there and allegedly being assisted to leave the country. She further alleged that on 27.04.2019 she received threatening and obscene messages from Accused No. 1. Based on these allegations, a complaint was registered as Crime No. 25 of 2019 at the Ongole Women Police Station under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The petitioners sought to quash these proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the complainant, being a transgender individual, could not be legally recognized as a "woman" under Section 498-A IPC and was therefore not entitled to file such a complaint. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Another v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920) to argue that the term “woman” should not include transgender individuals under family law.
Additionally, they contended that the allegations were vague and did not establish any prima facie offence. Particularly, it was claimed that Accused No. 4 was not even related to the complainant or the other accused, and there was no concrete evidence against any of the petitioners.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that there were specific allegations and that the veracity of the claims should be tested during trial, not at the stage of quashment.
The Court recorded several key judicial observations concerning gender identity, marriage rights, and the interpretation of Section 498-A IPC: “A transgender person is one whose gender identity does not conform to the assigned sex. Transgender individuals may choose to undergo hormonal/laser therapy or sex reassignment surgery to align their physical characteristics with their gender identity.”
According to Section 2(k) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, an individual’s identity as a transgender person does not depend on whether they have undergone any form of medical or surgical transition. The law recognizes gender identity as a matter of self-identification, not medical intervention.
Further, the act of denying a trans woman recognition as a "woman" under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, based solely on her inability to biologically reproduce, constitutes a form of discrimination. Such exclusion undermines the principles of equality, dignity, and personal liberty enshrined in Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court cited National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, which recognized the right to self-identify gender. It further referenced Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration (AIR 2019 Mad 265), where the Madras High Court upheld a Hindu marriage between a man and a transwoman.
In reference to the Supriyo case, the Court quoted paragraph 340(m) of the minority opinion of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud: “Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing law including personal laws which regulate marriage.”
The Court also relied on the majority view (para 119 of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat's opinion): “We agree... that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws, including in personal laws regulating marriage.”
Thus, the Court concluded: “Respondent No. 2, being a transwoman in a heterosexual relationship, cannot be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint against her husband or the relatives of her husband for the alleged offences.”
However, regarding the allegations themselves, the Court found them vague, general, and unsupported by any concrete material.
“The entire complaint does not disclose even a single allegation to show that either Accused No. 1 or Accused Nos. 2 and 3 subjected her to cruelty or demanded dowry.”
Referring to Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. (2024) 12 SCR 559, the Court observed: “A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud.”
It added: “The allegation that Accused No. 1 received dowry and other articles... is far from truth.”
As to Accused No. 4, the Court noted: “Except the bald and omnibus allegation that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are acting to the dictates of Accused No. 4, there is no material to connect him with the alleged offence.”
The Court issued the following final direction: “These Criminal Petitions are allowed. The criminal proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.585 of 2022 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole for the offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the D.P. Act, are hereby quashed.”
It further clarified: “This Court makes it clear that, a transwoman / transgender, who is in a heterosexual relationship in marriage, shall have protection under Section 498-A IPC.”
All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, were directed to stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri Thandava Yogesh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. K. Priyanka Lakshmi, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XYZ & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: APHC010451872022
Case Number: Criminal Petition Nos. 6783, 7064, and 6830 of 2022
Bench: Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
