In the Andhra Pradesh HC’s recent decision on transgender women’s rights in marriage, a reaffirmation of their legal identity as women
In its decision of June 16, the Andhra Pradesh HC has reaffirmed that trans women are to be treated as women under Indian criminal law. Beyond marriage, the judgement concretises a long-fought battle for dignity.
Naina Bhargava
Published on: 8 July 2025, 04:06 pm
ON JUNE 16, 2025, THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT passed a thoughtful judgment that reinforced the right of transgender women to be treated as women under Indian criminal law. The case was not only about a marriage that had gone wrong, but also about a fight for dignity, legal identity, and the basic right to seek justice.
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa ruled that a transgender woman in a heterosexual marriage has the legal right to file a dowry harassment complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court rejected the idea that womanhood must be linked to reproductive ability. It made clear that being a woman is not limited to biological functions but includes gender identity and lived experience. This ruling is not the creation of a new law, but a reminder of what has already been recognised by the Constitution and the courts. It strengthens the protections given to transgender persons, especially in intimate and domestic spaces that often go unquestioned by the law.
The story behind the case
The case was based on a complaint filed by Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman, against her husband Viswanathan Krishna Murthy and his family. She alleged cruelty, dowry demands, and abandonment after a short period of cohabitation. The two had been in a relationship before marrying under Hindu rites at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, in January 2019.
According to Sabhana, her family gave dowry in the form of cash, gold, and household goods. However, just a couple of months into the marriage, Viswanathan left and cut off all contact. She also received a threatening message, allegedly from him. The police filed a chargesheet, and the case was taken up in a magistrate court.
This ruling is not the creation of a new law, but a reminder of what has already been recognised by the Constitution and the courts.
In response, Viswanathan and his relatives filed petitions to quash the criminal case. Their main argument was that Sabhana, being transgender and unable to bear children, could not be treated as a woman under the law.
The High Court’s response to gender-based objections
The High Court addressed two main questions. First, whether a transgender woman can file a complaint under Section 498-A. Second, whether the case itself had enough legal weight to proceed.
Justice Pratapa firmly stated that Sabhana, a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage, is entitled to the protections of Section 498-A. The judge drew on existing constitutional and legal principles, including the 2014 Supreme Court decision in NALSA v. Union of India (2014). That landmark ruling held that transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender and must be recognised as equal citizens under Articles 14, 15, and 21.
