Viswanathan Krishna Murthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025
The Recognition of a transgender woman as a ‘woman’ under Section 498A IPC, affirming her right to seek legal protection in a heterosexual marriage.
Judgement Details
Court
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
24 June 2025
Judges
Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
A transgender woman married the petitioner (a cisgender male) following Hindu customs.
-
She alleged her husband was fully aware of her gender identity at the time of marriage.
-
She claimed her family paid dowry: ₹1,00,000 in cash, 25 sovereigns of gold, 500 grams of silver, and household articles worth ₹2,00,000.
-
Post marriage, the petitioner allegedly left her, and she began receiving threatening and obscene messages from his phone.
-
She also accused the in-laws of orchestrating the harassment.
-
A complaint was filed under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Issues
-
Can a transgender woman in a heterosexual marriage file a complaint under Section 498A IPC?
-
Does the complaint contain sufficient factual allegations to justify a criminal trial?
-
Can vague and unsupported allegations justify continuing criminal proceedings?
Judgement
-
The High Court affirmed that transgender women are entitled to legal protection under Section 498A IPC if they are in a heterosexual marital relationship.
-
The Court rejected the argument that a transgender woman does not fall under the category of “woman” in the legal sense.
-
It held that gender identity is a matter of self-identification and cannot be denied based on biological features like reproductive capacity.
-
However, the court quashed the case due to the lack of specific and substantiated allegations of cruelty or dowry harassment.
Held
-
Transgender women in heterosexual marriages are entitled to legal protections under IPC Section 498A.
-
A narrow interpretation of the term “woman” based only on reproductive ability is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
-
Since the allegations were vague, general, and uncorroborated, the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.
-
Therefore, the case was quashed.
Analysis
-
The judgment is a landmark in affirming gender justice and inclusivity under Indian criminal law.
-
It recognizes that transgender individuals have the constitutional right to dignity, equality, and protection, just like cisgender individuals.
-
The Court cited the NALSA v. Union of India decision, which recognized transgender rights, and emphasized self-identification of gender as a legal right.
-
The reference to the Madras High Court’s view that “bride” includes transgender women under the Hindu Marriage Act was critical.
-
This ruling contributes to progressive jurisprudence but also stresses the need for substantiated evidence in criminal complaints.