## Landmark Case Challenges Application of Marital Laws to Same-Sex Relationships in India
The Delhi High Court is currently hearing a meaningful case that tests the limits of India’s existing marital laws, centered around petitions filed by an individual biologically female who is undergoing treatment for gender dysphoria. The litigant is seeking to have first Information Reports (FIRs) filed by her former female partner quashed.
One petition requests the dismissal of an FIR registered in Delhi alleging cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman, a charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The second petition asks the High Court to halt proceedings in a local court initiated under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005, arguing the relationship was a same-sex partnership.Both matters are being considered by the same judge.
The petitioner identifies as having been born with female genetic characteristics but was later diagnosed with gender dysphoria.She consistently exhibited behavioral and social traits aligning with a male identity. Supporting this,she has submitted a certificate from the All india Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) confirming her genetic sex,her desire to transition to male,and her ongoing therapeutic treatment.
The couple initially connected on social media in 2022 while the petitioner was studying medicine abroad, bonding over her experiences with gender dysphoria. Following her return to India in October 2023, they participated in a “symbolic marriage” or civil union in Panchkula, Haryana, documented by a certificate issued by the Vaidik Pujan Kendra. They subsequently shared a rented flat in Delhi, where their relationship ultimately deteriorated.The situation escalated in October 2024 when the petitioner filed a petition for nullity with a Delhi family court, asserting the union was invalid due to the current lack of legal recognition for marriage between two women. this led to the complaints filed by the respondent,which are now the subject of the petitions before the Delhi High Court.The case raises complex legal questions. According to constitutional law expert Virag Gupta, “same-sex marriage is not yet recognised in law; no statute protects or endorses a marital union between same-sex couples.” He notes that while courts have allowed Section 498A or related proceedings in live-in relationships, these cases have always involved a man and a woman, and crucially, require a valid and lawful marriage for relief under Section 498A.
Advocate Tushar Sannu emphasizes that the legislative intent behind Section 498A is rooted in traditional marital structures, citing the Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam case, which reinforced the provision’s purpose of protecting women within marriage.The Supreme Court’s ruling in Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) further solidified this framework.
“Given the absence of formal legal recognition for same-sex spousal status, the specific safeguards under Section 498A are not available to these unions,” Sannu stated.
Advocate anand Prakash points out the literal interpretation of Section 498A, which penalizes cruelty by a “husband” or his “relatives” against a “wife,” renders it inapplicable in a relationship between two women, as neither party fulfills the legal definitions.
This case underscores the existing gaps in India’s legal framework concerning same-sex relationships. The High Court’s decision will likely clarify whether prosecution under Section 498A can proceed without a legally recognized marriage, and whether the Domestic Violence Act can be applied to same-sex couples, possibly setting a precedent with significant implications for LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Published – november 02, 2025 08:24 pm IST.
