HC refuses to consider man’s plea seeking to determine wife’s gender

The Delhi high court on Wednesday refused to consider a man’s plea seeking to determine his wife’s gender — the petitioner alleged she is a transgender and concealed it before marriage — emphasising that granting relief would have “wide ramifications”. The court, however, granted him the liberty to approach the family court on the issue.
A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula said the petition was not maintainable since the writ cannot lie against a private person.
“How is this plea maintainable? This is purely a matrimonial dispute. You go and make a request to the court. No writ can lie against a private person. Writ cannot lie. Your humble prayer is okay. This (ordering determination of gender) has wide ramifications. You want somebody’s gender to be determined. It’s a pure and pure matrimonial dispute. You cannot ask the spouse to determine the gender. Whatever he is doing, can’t be permitted… the writ is not maintainable. Go file before the court (family court),” justice Narula told advocate Abhishek Kumar, who was representing the petitioner.
The petitioner alleged that his wife concealed her identity before marriage, causing him mental trauma, non-consummation of marriage and a series of false proceedings against him, including maintenance, domestic violence and dowry claims.
The petition said that the wedding took place according to Hindu rites in February 2020, but the wife refused to consummate the marriage citing health issues. It stated that the wife and her family left the marital home in June 2020, taking along with them her belongings.
“The petitioner contends that he was deceived into marriage through fraudulent concealment of wife’s gender violating his right to a legitimate marital relationship under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the plea said.
The petition stated that the city court dismissed a similar petition in November 2023. Further, it sought a stay on all legal proceedings filed by the wife until her gender was determined, claiming the man should not be required to pay maintenance if the wife did not qualify as a woman within the scope of these legislations.