Man seeks divorce claiming his wife ‘is not a female’

The Supreme Court recently admitted a man’s plea asking for a divorce from his wife on the grounds that she is “not a female”.

The apex court has asked the woman to respond to her husband’s demand for separation within four weeks.

The SC bench of justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh was initially hesitant in admitting the man’s plea, but did so after he submitted medical reports suggesting his wife has a penis and an imperforate hymen. As per medical journals, an imperforate hymen is a congenital disorder where a hymen without an opening completely obstructs the vagina.

In June last year, the Madhya Pradesh high court had quashed a lower court’s order issuing summons to the wife “for cheating her husband”. The High Court then dismissed his petition saying “only on the basis of oral evidence and without medical evidence”, a cheating charge could not be established.

Also read: Do you own old vehicles? Renewal of RC to get very expensive from April 1

The man’s lawyer argued in the SC that there is enough medical proof to show that the wife cannot be said to be a woman because of an imperforate hymen.

According the petitioner, the two got married in 2016 but his wife “did not consummate their marriage for some days claiming she was menstruating”. When the man tried to get intimate with his wife, he found “no presence of a vaginal opening and found she had a small penis, like a child,” reads the petition.

The man then sought medical assistance for his wife. The doctors identified it as a case of “imperforate hymen”. The doctors said a surgery could help rectify the physical deformity, but said the possibility of pregnancy was negligible.

The woman then went back to her father’s house and returned after a surgery. The petitioner said his father-in-law “barged into his house and threatened him”. The man then approached the police and later sought a divorce.

Meanwhile, the wife too approached the courts against the man, claiming that he “treated her with cruelty for additional dowry”.