25 June 2025 Legal Updates

TRANSGENDER WOMAN IN HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE CAN FILE COMPLAINT AGAINST HUSBAND, IN-LAWS U/S 498A IPC

(a) Case Title:

• Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

(b) Court:

• High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 16, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa

Key Facts

Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman (originally assigned male at birth) was married to t Viswanathan Krishna Murthy (husband)married on January 21, 2019, at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, following Hindu rites. The transgender woman filed a complaint against her husband and his family for allegedly subjecting her to cruelty and dowry demands under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Legal Issues

1. Primary Question:

• Whether a transgender woman can file a complaint under Section 498-A IPC (cruelty by husband and relatives) and Dowry Prohibition Act?

2. Secondary Question:

• Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed due to lack of prima facie evidence?

Court's Reasoning

• Constitutional Protection: Transgender persons have full constitutional protection under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21
• Right to Self-Identity: Based on National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014), transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender
• Marriage Rights: Following Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws
• Legal Recognition: The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 provides comprehensive protection

Key Legal Principle Established

The court categorically held: "A transgender woman in a heterosexual marriage relationship has the same legal protection under Section 498-A IPC as any other woman."

On the Specific Case

Despite recognizing transgender rights, the court quashed the criminal proceedings because the allegations were vague, bald, and omnibus, No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned, No evidence of dowry demand (it was a love marriage), Parents-in-law had cordial relations with the complainant and the fourth accused had no connection to the alleged offenses

Important Legal Precedents Cited

• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) - Fundamental rights of transgender persons
• Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) - Marriage rights of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships
• Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019) - Validity of marriage between male and transgender woman
• Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024) - Caution against vague allegations in matrimonial disputes

ONLY SENIOR CITIZEN WHO TRANSFERRED PROPERTY CAN MAINTAIN APPLICATION TO DECLARE TRANSFER VOID

(a) Case Title:

• Karuppan v. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector & Others

(b) Court:

• Madras High Court

(c) Date of Decision:

• June 19, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh (Single Judge)

Key Facts

Petitioner's father executed a settlement deed in 1997 transferring property to the petitioner. The settlement deed was absolute with no conditions and explicitly stated it could not be cancelled. After the father's death, the petitioner's mother approached authorities under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, seeking cancellation of the settlement deed. She claimed the petitioner was not taking care of her and depriving her of love and affection. The Sub-Collector cancelled the settlement deed, which the petitioner challenged.

Legal Issues

• Whether Section 23(1) of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 applies to documents without express maintenance conditions
• Whether "love and affection" can be considered an implied condition for invoking Section 23(1)
• Whether a person other than the transferor can seek cancellation under Section 23(1)

Court's Analysis & Decision

The Court held that Section 23(1) requires three cumulative conditions:

• Transfer of property by a senior citizen (aged 60+)
• Transfer must be subject to specific express condition that transferee will provide basic amenities and physical needs
• Transferee's failure to provide such amenities

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Express Condition Mandatory:

• The condition for maintenance must be explicitly stated in the transfer document - it cannot be implied

2. "Love and Affection" Not a Condition:

• Love and affection is merely a motive for transfer, not a legal condition or consideration

3. Only Transferor Can Apply:

• Only the person who transferred the property can seek relief under Section 23(1)

Final Judgment

The Writ petition was allowed. The settlement deed cancellation order was quashed and the same was restored to its original position. The Court found that since the 1997 settlement deed contained no maintenance condition and the mother (not the original transferor) filed the application, Section 23(1) was not applicable.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT PERMITS WOMAN TO ABORT 25-WEEK PREGNANCY AFTER HER 'ESTRANGED' PARTNER AGREES TO LOOK AFTER HER

(a) Case Title:

• ABC v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

(b) Court:

• High Court of Judicature at Bombay

(c) Date of Decision:

• 19th June 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Revati Mohite Dere & Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale

Facts of the Case

A 31-year-old woman in her 25th week of pregnancy approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy (MTP). The pregnancy occurred due to contraceptive failure during a consensual relationship. The woman was no longer in the relationship and lacked financial and emotional support from her partner and family to continue the pregnancy.

Medical Board's Opinion

The court constituted a Medical Board under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. The Board found:

• The petitioner was physically fit for termination
• No substantial fetal anomalies were detected
• No active psychiatric disorder threatening maternal life
• However, they concluded there were no medical grounds for termination at this gestational age

Legal Arguments

• Petitioner's counsel argued that continuing the pregnancy would cause grave mental anguish due to lack of support and personal circumstances
• State's counsel suggested allowing full-term pregnancy with state responsibility for the child's adoption/rehabilitation

Court's Decision and Reasoning

The court permitted the medical termination, applying principles from the Supreme Court case A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra.

Key reasoning:

• Reproductive autonomy and dignity are fundamental rights under Article 21
• The woman's consent and choice are paramount
• Continuing pregnancy would adversely affect her already disturbed psychological condition
• Medical boards must consider risks to both physical and mental health, not just medical grounds

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Primacy of consent:

• The pregnant woman's autonomous decision is crucial

2. Mental health consideration:

• Psychological distress constitutes valid grounds for MTP

3. Judicial discretion:

• Courts can override medical board opinions when fundamental rights are at stake

4. Holistic assessment:

• Social, financial, and emotional circumstances must be considered alongside medical factors