Same-Sex Couples Seek Inclusion in ‘Spouse’ Definition – Bombay HC Issues Notice

Payio Ashiho & Anr. Vs Union of India & Anr. (Bombay High Court)

The Bombay High Court is set to hear a writ petition filed by Payio Ashiho & Anr. challenging the definition of the term “spouse” under the Income Tax Act, specifically in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x). The petitioners, who are in a same-sex relationship, argue that the current definition is unconstitutional because it excludes them from the benefits and scope of the term. They seek a declaration from the court that the exclusion is unconstitutional.

In their petition, the individuals have also requested an alternative remedy. They have asked the court to interpret the term “spouse” to include same-sex couples in stable, long-term relationships. According to their submission, such couples are in a position analogous to heterosexual married couples. In response to the constitutional challenge, the High Court has issued a notice to the Attorney General of India and has scheduled the next hearing for September 18, 2025.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. The above Writ Petition is filed to declare and hold that the term ‘spouse’ appearing in the explanation to the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) as unconstitutional inasmuch as it excludes the Petitioners from the scope and definition of the term ‘spouse’. The declaration is also sought to extend the benefit of the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act to the Petitioners who are in a long-term, stable same sex relationship. In the alternative to prayer clause (a), relief is sought that the term ‘spouse’ as used in the fifth proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the IT Act be read to include same sex couples like the Petitioners, and who according to the Petitioners, are in exactly the same position as heterosexual couples which would be presumed to be in a marriage.