Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa of Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently ruled that a trans woman in a heterosexual relationship cannot be deprived of her right to lodge a complaint of cruelty under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Viswanathan Krishna Murthy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another].
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa was dealing with a petition seeking quashing of charges Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against a husband and his family members, who were booked on complaint of a trans woman, who was originally a man.
“This Court makes it clear that, a transwoman, who is a transgender, being in heterosexual marriage, shall have protection under Section 498-A IPC,” the single-judge ruled.
The petitioners had argued that a trans woman cannot lodge a complaint under Section 498A of IPC against her husband or in-laws as she cannot be considered as a woman in complete sense.
However, the Court held that the argument that a trans woman cannot be regarded as a ‘woman’ merely because she is incapable of biological reproduction, is deeply flawed and legally impermissible
Such a narrow view of womanhood with reproduction undermines the very spirit of the Constitution, which upholds dignity, identity and equality for all individuals irrespective of gender identity, the Court observed.
“To deny a trans woman the status of a ‘woman’ for the purpose of legal protection under Section 498-A IPC solely on the ground of her reproductive capacity is to perpetuate discrimination and to violate Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. Such a contention, therefore, deserves to be rejected at the outset,” it added.
In this regard, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Supriyo vs Union of India in which the top court ruled against recognising same-sex marriages.
“It is pertinent to note that despite denying legal validity to same-sex marriage, the Court unanimously directed the Union government to form a high-level committee under the Cabinet Secretary to examine and recommend measures ensuring equal rights for queer couples in areas such as adoption, healthcare, succession, pensions, and financial services. The Hon’ble Court’s clarification that transgender individuals in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under the existing legal framework strikes at the very argument raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in the case on hand, who placed reliance on the said decision,” the High Court said.
Considering the matter on merits, the Court noted that the accused-husband knew that the complainant was a trans woman. It added that he loved her, lived with her for sometime and then married her at an Arya Samaj Mandir. It further found no allegation in the complaint to show that the accused had subjected her to cruelty.
“The only allegation against Accused No.1 is that, he left to his parents‟ house on 13.03.2019 and did not return to her. Further, she stated in her complaint that, on 27.04.2019 she received a message from the mobile of Accused No.1 cautioning her to go back otherwise, she would be killed. Further, except stating that at the time of marriage, the parents of Respondent No.2 gave dowry and gold and silver articles to Accused No.1, there is no iota of material to buttress the said allegation,” it said.
Except bald and omnibus allegations against petitioners, no prima facie case is made out, the Court concluded. Therefore, it proceeded to quash the proceedings against the accused.
“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 ordered.
Advocate Thandava Yogesh represented the petitioners.
Assistant Public Prosecutor K Priyanka Lakshmi represented the State.
