Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled that a transgender woman in a heterosexual relationship has legal standing to file a complaint for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  

What was the Background of Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) Case?    

• The complainant, Pokala Sabhana, a transgender woman, alleged that after marrying Accused No.1 (Viswanathan Krishna Murthy) under Hindu rites, she was subjected to mental harassment and threats. 
• She claimed to have given ₹10 lakhs, 25 sovereigns of gold, silver articles, and household items as dowry at the time of marriage. 
• After a brief cohabitation, her husband allegedly abandoned her and she later received threatening messages. 
• An FIR was registered under Section 498A IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 
• The accused filed petitions to quash the proceedings, claiming the complainant could not be considered a "woman" under Section 498A. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court referred to NALSA v. Union of India (2014) which upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender. 
• It cited the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, emphasizing that gender identity is not contingent upon surgical procedures. 
• The Court referred to the judgment of Madras HC, where a trans woman was held to be a valid "bride" under the Hindu Marriage Act. 
• The Court quoted Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), which acknowledged that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have a right to marry under existing law. 
• The Court affirmed that denying a transwoman protection under Section 498A IPC due to reproductive incapacity is unconstitutional and discriminatory. 
• Held that trans women are entitled to protection under criminal matrimonial law if in a heterosexual relationship. 
• The complaint lacked specific and concrete allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against any of the accused. 
• There were only general and vague accusations, and no prima facie evidence connecting the in-laws or the fourth accused to the alleged offences. 
• Citing Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024) and ABC v. State of UP (2025), the Court cautioned against dragging entire families into matrimonial disputes without clear evidence. 
• The Court therefore concluded that a transwoman in a heterosexual marriage can file a complaint under Section 498A IPC. 
• In the facts of the present case the Court held that due to lack of prima facie material and vague allegations, the proceedings be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC. 

What are the Rights of Transgender Persons? 

• The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014) recognized hijras and transgender persons as the “third gender” under the Constitution.  
  • The Court upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender as male, female, or third gender.  
  • The Court directed governments to provide legal recognition, reservation, healthcare, public facilities, and social welfare schemes for transgender persons.  
  • The judgment emphasized that insisting on sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for gender recognition is illegal and immoral.  
  • The Court urged awareness campaigns to reduce stigma and ensure transgender persons are treated with dignity and respect.  
• Following this, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 was enacted to prohibit discrimination and ensure rights of transgender individuals. 

What are the Cases Cited in the Judgment? 

• Supriyo v. Union of India (2023): 
  • The Court agreed with the Chief Justice's opinion on the right of transgender persons to marry. 
  • It acknowledged the distinction between sex and gender, affirming that gender identity may not match the sex assigned at birth. 
  • The judgment recognized the existence and rights of transgender men and women, intersex individuals, and other queer gendered persons. 
  • The Court supported the right against discrimination under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. 
  • It concurred with the legal interpretation and remedies outlined under the Transgender Act and found no need for further commentary. 
  • The Court affirmed that transgender persons in heterosexual relationships have the right to marry under existing laws, including personal laws. 
  • It endorsed the Madras High Court’s ruling in Arun Kumar v. Inspector General of Registration, finding its reasoning correct. 
• Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana (2024): 
  • Merely naming family members in matrimonial criminal cases without specific allegations should be discouraged. 
  • Courts have observed a trend of falsely implicating all family members of the husband during domestic disputes. 
  • General and vague accusations without concrete evidence cannot justify criminal prosecution. 
  • The judiciary must act cautiously to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and to protect innocent family members from unnecessary harassment. 
  • In the referenced case, family members who lived in different cities and were not part of the matrimonial household were wrongly included in the prosecution. 
  • Section 498A IPC was introduced to address genuine cruelty against women by their husbands and in-laws. 
  • However, there has been an increasing misuse of Section 498A by some women to settle personal scores or enforce unreasonable demands. 
  • Vague complaints during marital conflicts, if not carefully scrutinized, can lead to misuse of the legal process. 
  • The Court reiterated that prosecution under Section 498A should only proceed when a clear prima facie case is established.