Right in Question:
Whether a transwoman, who has undergone gender transition and is in a heterosexual marital relationship, is entitled to protection under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (cruelty in marriage) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961?
Facts:
A transwoman filed a complaint against her husband and his relatives under S.498-A, IPC and his relatives. She married the Accused No. 1 (Petitioner) in 2019 in an Arya Samaj temple in Hyderabad, after he assured acceptance by his family. She alleged that her parents provided dowry, gold, silver, and household articles at the time of marriage. After living together briefly, the Accused No.1 left for his parental home in March 2019 and did not return. Respondent No.2 began receiving threatening messages and alleged that Accused Nos. 1 to 3, under instructions from Accused No.4, were attempting to send Accused No.1 out of India and break up the marriage. A complaint was lodged, and a charge sheet was filed for offences under Section 498-A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Accused – Petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings.
Court Decision and Reasoning:
On the maintainability of the complaint, the Court referred to NALSA v. Union of India, which affirmed the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender, and to the Transgender Persons Act, 2019, defining “transgender person” under Section 2(k) irrespective of medical procedures. It further cited Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration (W.P. (MD) NO. 4125 OF 2019 AND W.M.P. (MD) NO. 3220 OF 2019), which recognised that a transwoman qualifies as a “bride” under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, making such marriages valid. The Court further noted that in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023 INSC 920) same-sex marriage was not recognized, the Bench unanimously affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships retain the right to marry under existing personal and general marriage laws. The argument that a transwoman cannot be treated as a “woman” because she cannot bear children was rejected as constitutionally regressive, violating Articles 14, 15, and 21. Since Respondent No.2’s marriage was heterosexual, the complaint under Section 498-A IPC was held maintainable.
On the question of quashment, the Court found that the Complainant’s allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were unsupported, and vague. As a result, they were insufficient to constitute a prima facie case. Consequently, the criminal complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 was quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Significance:
The judgment affirms that a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage is legally recognized as a ‘woman’ for protection under Section 498-A IPC, reinforcing the right to self-identified gender.