Andhra Pradesh High Court confirms that a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage can file a cruelty complaint under Section 498A IPC. The court upheld her legal rights and dismissed narrow views of womanhood.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Hyderabad: In a very important decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court clearly said that a trans woman (someone who was born male but identifies and lives as a woman) has the right to file a cruelty case against her husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with cruelty by a husband or his family towards a woman.
The case was heard by Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, who was dealing with a request to cancel the case filed against a husband and his family.
ALSO READ: Legal Remedies | How To Defend Against a Fake 498A Case?
They were charged under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act after a complaint by a trans woman who had married the 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 judge clearly stated.
The accused had argued that the trans woman could not be treated as a “woman” under the law, and so she should not be allowed to file a complaint under Section 498A. They said a trans woman is not a woman in the complete sense and cannot have children biologically.
But the court rejected this argument. It said this thinking is wrong and not acceptable under Indian law. The judge said that just because a trans woman cannot give birth, it is not right to say she is not a woman.
ALSO READ: “Domestic Violence & Section 498A IPC are the Most Abused Provisions”: Supreme Court
The Court strongly responded by saying:
“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.”
The Court also mentioned a related Supreme Court judgment in the Supriyo vs Union of India case. In that case, the Supreme Court did not allow same-sex marriage, but still gave a big direction to the Union Government.
It asked them to form a high-level committee under the Cabinet Secretary to look into and suggest how equal rights could be given to queer couples in areas like adoption, healthcare, succession, pension, and financial services.
The High Court noted that:
“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 then looked into the facts of the case and found that the husband already knew his partner was a trans woman. They lived together for a while, and then he married her in an Arya Samaj temple.
ALSO READ: 498A (Cruelty Law) Being Misused For Personal Vendetta Against Husband: Supreme Court
The court said that the complaint did not show clear proof of 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,”
-the court noted.
The judge said that there were only general and baseless accusations and not enough evidence to continue the criminal case. So, the charges against the husband and his family were cancelled.
“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,”
-the High Court ordered.
The husband and his family were represented by Advocate Thandava Yogesh, while Assistant Public Prosecutor K Priyanka Lakshmi appeared for the State.
CASE TITLE:
Viswanathan Krishna Murthy vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on 498A IPC
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Trans Woman
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
