In the Andhra Pradesh HC’s recent decision on transgender women’s rights in marriage, a reaffirmation of their legal identity as women

On June 16, 2025, in the Andhra Pradesh HC’s recent decision on transgender women’s rights in marriage, a reaffirmation of their legal identity as women under Indian criminal law. This case went beyond a marital dispute—it spotlighted fundamental issues of dignity, gender identity, and access to justice.

Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa ruled that Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman, had the legal standing to file a dowry harassment complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The court firmly rejected the notion that womanhood is confined to biological reproduction, emphasizing instead that gender identity and lived experience define one’s legal status as a woman. This judgment did not create new law but reaffirmed constitutional protections already established.

Sabhana had accused her husband, Viswanathan Krishna Murthy, and his family of cruelty, dowry-related abuse, and abandonment soon after their 2019 marriage conducted under Hindu rituals. She alleged that after receiving dowry in cash and valuables from her family, Viswanathan cut ties and sent her threatening messages. The police filed a chargesheet, but Viswanathan and his relatives challenged the case, arguing that Sabhana, being transgender, could not be recognized as a "woman" under the law.

The court examined two primary questions: whether Sabhana, as a transgender woman, could seek protection under Section 498-A, and whether the complaint itself had legal merit. Justice Pratapa affirmed that a transgender woman in a heterosexual marriage is indeed covered under this section. She relied on established precedents, particularly the Supreme Court’s 2014 NALSA judgment, which upheld the right of transgender individuals to self-identify their gender. The court also referenced the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which recognizes gender identity beyond biological traits.

Citing decisions such as Arunkumar v. IG of Registration (2019) and Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble (2023), the judge confirmed that transgender women are recognized as women under various family and criminal laws. The court also clarified that the Supreme Court’s 2023 Supriyo case did not undermine these protections but reinforced the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to access existing legal remedies.

However, while affirming Sabhana’s legal rights, the High Court found her specific allegations lacking in evidentiary support. Her statements were deemed vague and unspecific, especially concerning her in-laws' alleged involvement. In the absence of concrete details or clear instances of cruelty or dowry demands, the court invoked its power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the case.

What sets this judgment apart is its powerful reaffirmation that transgender women are fully entitled to recognition and protection under Indian law. It underscores that gender identity, as enshrined in the Constitution, transcends biological definitions and affirms the personhood of transgender individuals in personal and domestic contexts—areas where such recognition is often overlooked.

Case details: [Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Criminal Petition No.6783 of 2022) decided on 16-06-2025]