Extending Spouse' Tax Benefit Under IT Act For Same-Sex Couple Would Indirectly Recognise Same-Sex Marriage: Centre Tells Karnataka HC

The Centre on Saturday told the Karnataka High Court that interpreting “spouse” to include same-sex partners under a provision of the Income Tax Act would indirectly recognise a same-sex matrimonial relationship, which is not recognised under Indian law.

“Same-sex marriage is not a recognised marriage in the Indian context. So, if we understand spouse to mean same sex people, we indirectly recognise their matrimonial relationship. Therefore, spouse necessarily means husband and wife,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before Justice B.M. Shyam Prasad.

Mehta was opposing a plea by Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi challenging the constitutional validity of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, insofar as it excludes same-sex partners from the exemption available for certain gifts received from a "spouse."

The petition arose after Godi gifted Kalia a 22-karat gold bracelet, described as a family heirloom. The couple challenged the tax treatment of the gift, arguing that the benefit available to spouses should also extend to same-sex partners.

Section 56(2)(x) provides for taxation of certain money or property received by an individual during a financial year where its aggregate value exceeds Rs 50,000. The provision, however, excludes specified receipts, including gifts received from relatives. Section 2(41) defines “relative” to include the husband or wife of an individual.

The petitioners have sought a declaration that the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x), read with the Explanation to Section 56(2)(vii), is unconstitutional insofar as it excludes same-sex couples. They have alternatively sought a direction to interpret “spouse” to include same-sex couples in circumstances similar to heterosexual couples who would be presumed to be married.

Opposing the plea, Mehta argued that the petitioners were effectively seeking recognition of a same-sex matrimonial relationship through an interpretation of the Income Tax Act.

He referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Supriyo v. Union of India, submitting that recognition of a same-sex matrimonial relationship had been left to the legislature. The Centre argued that allowing the plea would therefore amount to achieving, through statutory interpretation, what had been left to Parliament.

Mehta also argued that the distinction under Section 56(2)(x) is based not on the sex of the persons involved but on their relationship and, specifically, the existence of a legally recognised marriage.

"So far as India is concerned, right from the inception, pre independence and post independence, homo sexual relationship and heterosexual relationship are treated separatively and all the laws including the income tax act is based upon marriage between biological man and biological woman,”, he argued.

He submitted that even a heterosexual couple living together without marriage would not be treated as spouses merely because of their relationship.

The Centre also argued that the Income Tax Act contains stringent conditions governing exemptions and that expanding the meaning of “spouse” could be misused to avoid tax.

“Stringent are the rules governing the exemptions in the Act…For example, what I can do is I can find out a person having no taxable income and I am transferring this amount, to evade tax… only thing I have to say is that we are in a same-sex relationship. It might happen,” Mehta submitted.

The Centre also defended the classification under Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that marriage is a valid basis for classification where there is an intelligible differentia and a nexus with the object of the legislation.

Mehta further submitted that marriage has consequences across several areas of Indian law and that extending the term “spouse” to other relationships could create consequences not contemplated by the legislature.

The Karnataka High Court has posted the matter for further arguments on October 9, 2026.

For Petitioner: Advocate Varshitha K and Dr. Dhruv Janssen Sanghvi

For Respondents: Senior Advocates Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India and Aravind Kamath, Addl Solicitor General of India