Judicial Recognition of Transwomen in Matrimonial Offences: A Landmark Interpretation of Section 498-A IPC
Judicial Recognition of Transwomen in Matrimonial Offences: A Landmark Interpretation of Section 498-A IPC
In a groundbreaking judgment that furthers the jurisprudential recognition of transgender rights in India, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Petition Nos. 6783, 7064, and 6830 of 2022), delivered on 16 June 2025 by Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, addressed the novel issue of whether a transwoman, who is in a heterosexual marriage, can seek protection under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court not only affirmed the transwoman’s right to file a complaint under matrimonial offence provisions but also quashed the proceedings against the accused due to absence of specific allegations, thereby harmonizing gender justice with safeguards against misuse of criminal law.
Background and Case Summary
The factual context of this litigation arises from the complaint filed by one Ms. Pokala Sabhana, a transwoman, against her husband and in-laws, alleging cruelty and dowry harassment. The complainant had transitioned from male to female and entered into a relationship with Accused No.1, which eventually culminated in a marriage solemnized on 21 January 2019 at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad. It was alleged that her parents paid ₹10 lakhs, 25 sovereigns of gold, silverware, and other household articles as dowry. Subsequently, the accused allegedly deserted her, sent her threats, and acted in concert with his parents and a distant relative to avoid responsibility. These allegations led to registration of an FIR under Section 498-A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners sought quashment of the charge sheet (C.C. No. 585 of 2022) pending before the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, by invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Contentions of the Petitioners
The principal contention advanced by the petitioners’ counsel, Sri Thandava Yogesh, was that a transwoman does not fall within the scope of the term "woman" as envisaged under Section 498-A IPC. Relying heavily on the decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, 2023 INSC 920, it was argued that legal recognition of marital rights of queer individuals lies within the exclusive domain of the legislature, not the judiciary. The counsel further contended that, as the complainant was incapable of reproduction and did not possess biological characteristics of a cisgender woman, she could not claim protection under matrimonial laws. Additionally, it was asserted that the allegations were vague, general, and devoid of concrete instances of cruelty or dowry demands, thereby necessitating quashment of the proceedings.
Judicial Reasoning and Analysis
The Hon’ble Court began its analysis by contextualizing the concept of gender identity and affirming the distinction between biological sex and self-identified gender. Relying on the landmark decision in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, the Court emphasized that the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 extend equally to transgender persons, and their right to self-identify their gender has been upheld as a facet of personal dignity and autonomy. The judgment also drew strength from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court had recognized sexual orientation and gender identity as essential aspects of privacy and dignity protected by the Constitution.
The Court went a step further to highlight the significance of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, particularly Section 2(k), which defines a transgender person in inclusive terms and does not make surgical transition or reproductive capability a precondition for recognition. Importantly, the Court referred to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration, AIR 2019 Mad 265, which interpreted the term "bride" under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act to include a transwoman. Similarly, in Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble, MANU/MH/1221/2023, the Bombay High Court held that a transwoman who had undergone sex reassignment surgery was entitled to file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
In addressing the reliance placed by the petitioners on the Supriyo judgment, the Court clarified that the Supreme Court's majority view in that case was confined to the question of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. In fact, both the Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (para 340(m)) and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (para 119) had explicitly recognized that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing personal laws. Therefore, the Court held that there is no legal embargo on a transwoman filing a complaint under Section 498-A IPC if she is in a heterosexual marital relationship.
Assessment of Allegations and Exercise of Inherent Powers
Despite affirming the complainant’s right to invoke Section 498-A IPC, the Court proceeded to examine the substantive content of the allegations. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2024) 12 SCR 559, Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 INSC 562, and ABC v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 671, the Court reiterated that vague, omnibus allegations made against family members in matrimonial disputes do not justify prosecution.
On scrutinizing the FIR and the charge sheet, the Court found no specific act of cruelty or demand for dowry by any of the accused. The allegations against Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (the parents-in-law) were found to be entirely general in nature, and the alleged threat messages from Accused No.1 were not substantiated with evidence. Further, Accused No.4 (a distant relative) was implicated only on the basis of a bald assertion that he was influencing the other accused. The marriage was admitted to be a love marriage performed without parental involvement, thereby weakening the dowry-related claims.
Invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, the Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of judicial process and would result in gross miscarriage of justice.
Operative Conclusions and Directions
In conclusion, the Hon’ble Court allowed the criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings against all four accused in C.C. No. 585 of 2022. Importantly, the Court unequivocally held that a transwoman in a heterosexual marital relationship is legally entitled to protection under Section 498-A IPC. This pronouncement represents a progressive expansion of matrimonial rights to include transgender persons and reinforces the constitutional commitment to equality, dignity, and non-discrimination.
Conclusion
The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court stands as a watershed in Indian matrimonial jurisprudence. It reinforces that gender identity, rather than biological sex, is the determinant for access to legal remedies under matrimonial laws. By upholding the right of a transwoman to file a complaint under Section 498-A IPC and simultaneously safeguarding the rights of the accused from vexatious prosecution, the Court has struck a judicious balance between inclusivity and procedural fairness. This decision is a doctrinal reaffirmation of the Indian judiciary's commitment to constitutional morality and non-discriminatory access to justice for all individuals, irrespective of their gender identity.
Citation: Viswanathan Krishna Murthy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Petition Nos. 6783, 7064, and 6830 of 2022, decided on 16.06.2025 (AP High Court)
For a detailed analysis and full judgment text, click the link below:
🔗 Click here to read the full judgment and in-depth analysis
Comments
Post a Comment