The Delhi High Court on Wednesday has dismissed a plea from a husband seeking a court order for a medical test to determine his wife’s gender, which he alleged was transgender.
Justice Sanjiv Narula rejected the application, stating that writ petitions do not apply against private individuals and that matrimonial disputes are unsuitable for such legal actions.
He cautioned that ordering a medical examination in such cases could set a troubling precedent with broader implications.
The husband had approached the Delhi High Court asking for the Delhi Police to conduct a medical examination of his wife at a Central Government hospital to establish her gender. He claimed that his wife, whom he described as a “transgender individual,” had hidden this information prior to their marriage.
He alleged that this concealment caused him mental distress, hindered the consummation of their marriage, and led to numerous false legal actions against him.
The petition, submitted by Advocate Abhishek Kumar Choudhary, acknowledged that an individual’s sex or gender identity is a private matter. However, it argued that in the context of marriage, the rights of both parties are interconnected.
To promote a healthy and peaceful marital life, it emphasized the need to balance and respect the fundamental rights to life for both individuals, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The husband’s plea further contended that he has a fundamental right to a fair investigation and determination of facts before facing legal proceedings tailored for women. It asserted that he should not be liable for maintenance or subjected to allegations under domestic violence and dowry laws if his wife does not fit the legal definition of a “woman.”
Previously, the petitioner had approached the trial court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to request the formation of a medical board for his wife’s examination. However, his application was dismissed by the trial court.
Court’s ruling reinforces the idea that personal matters, such as gender identity, should be handled sensitively and that the judicial system must tread carefully in matrimonial disputes.
The decision underscores the importance of privacy and individual rights, while also recognizing the complexities surrounding gender and marriage in contemporary society.
