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.
The court also referred to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The law makes it clear that a person’s gender identity does not depend on surgery or biological traits. It includes trans women, like Sabhana, within the legal definition of “woman” where relevant.
In addition, the court referred to earlier rulings such as Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration (2019), where the Madras High Court upheld the validity of marriage between a cis man and a trans woman under Hindu law. It also mentioned Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble (2023), in which the Bombay High Court recognised transgender women as "aggrieved persons" under the Domestic Violence Act.
The Andhra High Court also clarified confusion around the Supriyo v. Union of India decision of the Supreme Court in 2023. Petitioners had cited this case to argue that trans women were excluded from family law protections. But the High Court pointed out that both the majority and dissenting opinions in Supriyo had supported the right of transgender persons in heterosexual marriages to be protected under existing family laws.
The difference between legal recognition and proof of crime
After confirming that Sabhana had the legal right to file a complaint, the court examined the specific allegations. It found that while the complaint was legally valid, it lacked enough evidence to proceed against the accused. The statements made were general and lacked details. No clear or specific dowry demand or act of cruelty was mentioned.
In particular, the court found that Sabhana herself admitted to cordial relations with her in-laws. There was no material on record to show their involvement. Regarding the relative, the court found no basis for the claim that he orchestrated any harassment. These were deemed “bald and omnibus” allegations, without factual support.
What makes this judgment important is not the quashing of the complaint but the clear reaffirmation that transgender women are women under Indian law.
The court drew from several earlier decisions by the Supreme Court that stressed the need to prevent misuse of Section 498-A. It reiterated that simply naming family members in a matrimonial dispute is not enough. Specific involvement must be shown for a criminal case to stand. On that basis, the court used its powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the charges.
Constitutional identity and legal personhood
What makes this judgment important is not the quashing of the complaint but the clear reaffirmation that transgender women are women under Indian law. The judgment defends the dignity and identity of trans women in a society where both are often questioned. It affirms that law is not frozen in biology, and that the Constitution recognises personhood beyond reproductive roles.
In doing so, the High Court underlined a shift that has been gradually building in Indian jurisprudence: from identity as something assigned by others to identity as something lived and self-determined. The court’s view moves away from colonial legacies that criminalised non-binary identities and enshrined a rigid, binary idea of sex. It also breaks from the recent trend in many Western countries, like the United States and United Kingdom, where legal recognition of gender identity has been weakened or rolled back.
A quiet but strong step forward
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment is not dramatic in tone. It is calm, methodical, and rooted in existing law. But its strength lies in how it applies that law to affirm trans rights in a domain where they are often denied marriage and family. This is the space where social norms are strongest and where courts have often hesitated.
By confirming that a trans woman has the right to seek protection under laws meant for women, the court opens a path forward for many others in similar situations. The ruling shows that gender identity, when recognised and protected by law, is not just symbolic but also meaningful and enforceable. It also shows that legal systems in the Global South, particularly India, can lead the way on gender justice. At a time when many powerful democracies are retreating from hard-won gains, this judgment reminds us that the Indian Constitution remains a living document, one that still has the power to speak clearly and compassionately to questions of identity, justice, and dignity.