The Delhi High Court is hearing two petitions filed by a biologically female litigant, who is undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria, to quash an FIR filed by her estranged partner. | Photo credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
In a case that is testing the limits of India’s marriage laws, the Delhi High Court is now hearing two pleas filed by a biologically female litigant who is undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria to quash First Information Reports (FIRs) filed by her estranged partner.
In one of the petitions, the petitioner is seeking quashing of an FIR registered at a police station in the state capital for the crime of ill-treatment by a husband or his relatives against a woman (Section 498A). In the second application, she asked the High Court to set aside the proceedings before the local court under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 on the grounds that the parties were in a same-sex relationship.
Both matters are currently being heard by the same judge of the Delhi High Court.
The claimant claims that she was born a genetic female but was later diagnosed with gender identity disorder (gender dysphoria). She consistently displayed behavioral and social characteristics consistent with a male. She presented the court with a certificate issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) confirming her genetic sex, her desire to transition to male gender and the ongoing therapy.
The couple met on social media in 2022 while the petitioner was studying medicine abroad, becoming close as she shared her struggles with gender dysphoria. After she returned to India in October 2023, they entered into what they described as a “symbolic marriage” or civil union in Panchkula, Haryana, which was certified by the Vaidik Pujan Kendra. They later moved to a rented flat in Delhi where the relationship soured.
The situation further worsened when in October 2024, the petitioner filed an annulment petition in the Delhi Family Court, stating that their union was void as the law does not recognize a marriage between two women. Later, the respondent filed complaints which eventually led to the petitions which are currently before the Delhi High Court.
Section 498A
The dispute raised legal dilemmas. “First of all, same-sex marriage is not yet recognized by law; no law protects or approves marriage between same-sex couples,” said constitutional law expert Virag Gupta.
“Secondly, while courts have in some cases allowed Section 498A or related proceedings in live-in relationships, each involving a man and a woman. Thirdly, for relief under Section 498A, there must be a valid and legal marriage,” Mr Gupta said.
The legislative intent of Section 498A is firmly rooted in traditional marriage structures, advocate Tushar Sannu said. “Courts, including in the case of Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam, have reiterated that the purpose of this provision is to protect women in the institution of marriage,” Mr. Sannu said. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Supriyo versus Union of India (2023) underlined the same framework, he added.
“As there is no formal legal recognition for the status of same-sex spouses, there are no specific safeguards under Section 498A for these unions,” Mr Sannu said.
“Section 498A is a gender-specific offense that punishes cruelty by a ‘husband’ or his ‘relatives’ against a ‘wife’. A strict, literal reading renders it inapplicable where both partners are women, as neither fits the statutory definition of a ‘husband’,” agreed advocate Anand Prakash.
This case highlights gaps in India’s legal framework regarding same-sex relationships. It may finally clarify whether prosecutions under Section 498A can stand without a legally recognized marriage and whether the Domestic Violence Act can apply to same-sex couples. The court’s decision could have far-reaching consequences.
Published – 02 Nov 2025 20:24 IST
