Andhra Pradesh High Court: The instant petitions were filed by the petitioners (Accused Nos.1, 2 & 3 and 4 respectively) under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of proceedings against them in a complaint before the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J., quashed the criminal proceedings for lacking the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences and held that a trans woman in a heterosexual relationship has the right to be recognised as a woman and a spouse for the purposes of matrimonial and penal law.
The complainant, a transgender woman named Pokala Sabhana, had alleged harassment and dowry demands against her husband and his family. The primary question was whether a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage could invoke Section 498-A IPC and whether there were sufficient grounds to sustain criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
The factual background revealed that the complainant, originally a male, had transitioned and identified as a woman. She entered into a romantic relationship with the first petitioner (Accused 1), which culminated in a marriage solemnised at Arya Samaj, Hyderabad in January 2019. She alleged that her parents paid Rs.10 lakhs, gifted 25 sovereigns of gold, 500 grams of silver articles, and household items worth Rs.2 lakhs at the time of marriage. However, post-marriage, the couple resided in Ongole and occasionally visited the husband’s family in Chennai, but by March 2019, the husband left and ceased communication. The complainant further claimed to have received threatening messages from his number and alleged that the family, acting in the direction of Accused 4, attempted to send the husband abroad to avoid her. Consequently, she lodged a complaint at Ongole Women Police Station, which was registered under relevant penal provisions and proceeded into a chargesheet.
The petitioners contended that the complainant, being a transgender person, could not be considered a “woman” under Section 498-A IPC. They heavily relied on Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1348, wherein the Supreme Court had ruled against recognising same-sex marriages under Indian family law. They argued that, since a trans woman cannot biologically bear children, she cannot be treated as a “woman” within the meaning of the penal provision. It was also submitted that the allegations were vague, general, and did not disclose any act of cruelty or demand for dowry. However, regarding Accused 4, it was argued that he was not even related to others and was named without a basis.
The Court framed two points for determination:
(1) Whether a complaint by a trans woman for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act is legally maintainable; and
(2) Whether the criminal proceedings warranted quashing?
On the first issue, the Court undertook a detailed survey of constitutional jurisprudence and statutory enactments. It revisited the landmark judgment in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the right of transgender persons to self-identify their gender and held such recognition as constitutionally protected under Articles 14, 15, and 21. It also referred to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, which provides for gender identity recognition irrespective of surgical status. The Court noted that under Section 2(k) of the said Act, a trans woman is expressly recognised within the fold of “transgender persons.”
Further, relying on Arunkumar v. Inspector General of Registration [AIR 2019 Mad 265], the Court endorsed that a trans woman, as a self-identified woman in a heterosexual marriage with a man, can be treated as a “bride” under the Hindu Marriage Act. The judgment further cited Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble, W.P. No. 4037/2021, decided on 16-03-2023, where the Bombay High Court held that a trans woman could file proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.
In relation to Supriyo (supra), the Court clarified that although the majority in Supriyo did not recognise same-sex marriages, both the majority and minority opinions unambiguously affirmed the right of transgender persons in heterosexual relationships to marry under existing personal laws. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitioners’ interpretation of Supriyo as incorrect and contrary to settled constitutional principles.
The Court rejected the argument that biological reproduction is essential to determine womanhood under law. Such a narrow interpretation was found to be violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The Court categorically held that the complainant, being a trans woman in a heterosexual marriage, is entitled to invoke Section 498-A IPC and seek protection under matrimonial law.
On the second issue, however, the Court scrutinised the factual allegations and found them lacking in material substance. It observed that the complaint did not contain any specific or prima facie allegation of cruelty or dowry demand against Accused 1, 2, or 3. The only allegations pertained to the husband’s departure from the marital home and a threatening message allegedly sent from his phone. There was no evidence of consistent harassment, cruelty, or unlawful demand. With respect to Accused 2 and 3 (the parents), the complaint actually recorded cordial relations with the complainant, and no act of cruelty was attributed to them. Similarly, the accusation against Accused 4 was found to be a vague and omnibus statement without any factual backing.
Relying on precedents such as Dara Lakshmi Narayana v. State of Telangana, (2025) 3 SCC 735, Muppidi Lakshmi Narayana Reddy v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 884, the Court reiterated that vague, bald, and sweeping allegations, particularly in matrimonial disputes, cannot be allowed to sustain criminal prosecution. It warned against the misuse of Section 498-A IPC as a tool for vengeance and held that in the absence of clear, specific allegations, continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of the process of law.
Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against all the petitioners. However, in doing so, it categorically affirmed the maintainability of a Section 498-A complaint by a trans woman in a heterosexual relationship and clarified that the protective umbrella of Section 498-A extends to such complainants. The petitions were accordingly allowed.
[Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CRIMINAL PETITION Nos. 6783, 7064 AND 6830 OF 2022, decided on 16-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: THANDAVA YOGESH
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
