Can Trans-Woman File 498A IPC Complaint in Heterosexual Marriage? What Andhra Pradesh HC Says

Case Name: Viswanathan Krishna Murthy Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh (2022)

Context:

In a case that navigates the intricate crossroads of gender identity, love, family strife, and interpretation of law, Respondent No. 2 assigned male at birth and owned up to her status as a transgender woman and fell in love with Petitioner/Accused No. 1 in Chennai. Refusing to be deterred, the two got married. But the relationship soon fell apart, with the petitioner going back to his parents' house and having nothing more to do with her. This was followed by a series of abusive and threatening messages, prompting the respondent to lodge a complaint at the Women Police Station in Ongole with her husband along with his relatives as accused.

The police inquiry resulted in the issuance of a charge sheet, which was subsequently questioned before the Andhra Pradesh High Court with the view to getting the proceedings quashed. Although the Court finally rejected the case against all accused due to paucity of evidence, it made a landmark observation by identifying the transgender respondent as a "woman" to be protected under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

A transgender woman fights for justice under IPC Section 498A in a landmark Andhra Pradesh High Court ruling.

Factual Background of the case:

Respondent No. 2 Born as Male but transitioned to female and became women while residing in Chennai Respondent No. 2 and Petitioner No.1 fell  for each other and developed a romantic relationship. Although aware of the Situation, Petitioner No.1 agreed to Marry the Respondent. After discovering the affair between them the Petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 3 lodged complaints against her. 

Petitioner/Accused No.1 Persuaded his family for Marriage and Started sharing a home. Respondent No.2 and Petitioner/Accused No.1 signed a Memorandum of Understanding on January 11, 2019, and on January 21, 2019, they got married in accordance with Hindu rites and customs. Respondent No. 2's parents gave Petitioner/Accused No. 1 a dowry of Rs. 10,00,000 at the time of marriage, along with 25 sovereigns of gold, 500-gram silver articles, and Rs. 2,00,000 worth of household goods.

They both began living at her parents' home in Ongole. From January 21, 2019, to March 11, 2019, Respondent No. 2 and Accused No. 1 shared a residence. Both started residing at her parents’ house in Ongole. Respondent No.2 and Accused No.1  lived together from  21.01.2019 to 11.03.2019.

Later on Accused No.1 went to his parents home and did not return. Respondent No.2 tried to connect with Accused No.1 his phone was switched off. Therefore she went to Accused No.1 house and discovered that Petitioners/Accused No. 2 and 3 attempted to send Accused No.1 out of the country.

On 27.04.2019, Respondent No. 2 received a threatening message from Accused No.1’s phone, warning her to leave the place or face death. She also received vulgar messages.Therefore, she lodged a complaint against Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 4, After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. 

Consequently, Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 Seeking the quashment of the said C.C., the present petitions are preferred.

Point for Determination U/S 498A IPC In Heterosexual Marriage

• Whether the Women in Heterosexual Marriage can be considered as a Women U/S 498A read with 34 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act?

• Whether the criminal proceedings warranted quashing?

What the Law Says on Gender Identity

In the landmark decision NALSA v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court recognized:

• The right of transgender persons to identify as male, female, or third gender

• That gender identity is protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).

• That Articles 14, 15, 16, and 19 apply equally to transgender individuals.

• Any discrimination based on gender identity is unconstitutional.

Further, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 reinforced the principle of self-identification of gender.

Conclusion:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court came to the instance that, like other women, a transgender who identifies as female and is married to a heterosexual man has all the right to invoke Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Court upheld the gender self-identification principles Recognized outline in NALSA v. Union of India and enforced by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 by acknowledging her legal and constitutional right to be treated as a "woman."

However, the Court observed that the complaints of cruelty and dowry harassment were unclear and baseless by evidence, even though it upheld her legal rights. As a result, the Court dismissed the FIR and criminal charges.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now