Payio Ashihio Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Background
A same-sex couple has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the exclusion of same-sex partners from the tax benefits available to “spouses” under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petition primarily concerns the exemption available on gifts received from specified relatives, including a spouse, under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income-tax Act.
According to media reports, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the reference to “spouse” in the statutory provision should either be interpreted to include same-sex partners or be declared unconstitutional to the extent it excludes them.
Income Tax Department’s Stand
In its affidavit before the Bombay High Court, the Income Tax Department opposed the petition, contending that tax benefits available to a “spouse” cannot be extended to same-sex couples unless their relationship is first recognized as a valid marriage under Indian law.
The Department argued that:
- The Income-tax Act does not independently define or recognize marriage beyond what is recognized under existing marriage laws.
- A relationship cannot be treated as a marriage or confer “spouse” status for tax purposes unless such relationship is legally recognized under the applicable marriage statutes.
- Since Indian law presently does not recognize same-sex marriages, the petitioners cannot claim exemptions specifically available to spouses under the Income-tax Act.
Proceedings Before the Bombay High Court
The latest order of the Bombay High Court is procedural in nature.
During the hearing, the learned Additional Solicitor General informed the Court that the Solicitor General of India would be appearing on behalf of the Revenue and requested that the matter be adjourned for three weeks.
The Division Bench observed that the matter had already been adjourned on several occasions at the request of the Revenue. Granting what it described as a final opportunity, the Court directed that the writ petition be listed on 30 July 2026 at 3:00 p.m.
The Court also noted that counsel for the petitioners travels from outside India to argue the matter and made it clear that no further adjournments would be granted.
Importantly, the Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the constitutional challenge in this order.
Legal Issue
The case raises an important constitutional and tax law question:
Can same-sex couples claim tax exemptions available to “spouses” under the Income-tax Act when Indian law does not presently recognize same-sex marriages?
The answer will depend on whether the High Court accepts the petitioners’ constitutional challenge or agrees with the Revenue’s position that the Income-tax Act cannot extend benefits beyond relationships recognized under existing marriage laws.
Wider Legal Context
The litigation follows the Supreme Court’s decision in Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023), in which the Constitution Bench declined to legalize same-sex marriage through judicial interpretation and held that such recognition falls within the legislative domain. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the rights and dignity of LGBTQIA+ persons and recognized that same-sex couples face practical disadvantages arising from the absence of legal recognition.
The Bombay High Court proceedings therefore concern the tax consequences flowing from that broader legal position rather than the recognition of marriage itself.
Why the Case Matters
The outcome of the petition could have implications for the interpretation of tax provisions that use terms such as “spouse” or “marriage.” A decision in favour of the petitioners could influence the availability of tax exemptions linked to marital status, while a decision accepting the Revenue’s stand would reaffirm that such benefits remain confined to relationships recognized under existing marriage laws unless Parliament amends the law.
For now, however, the Bombay High Court has only adjourned the matter, and the constitutional challenge remains pending.
Case Details
