Flightsvilla at 21:52, 5 May 2026

2026-05-05T21:52:18Z

New page

{{Short description|none}} 
{{Use dmy dates|date=February 2023}}
{{SSM|minimal}}

[[Karnataka]] does not recognise [[same-sex marriage]]s or [[civil union]]s. However, [[Cohabitation|live-in relationships]] are not unlawful in Karnataka. The [[Supreme Court of India|Indian Supreme Court]] has held that adults have a constitutional right to live together without being married, and that police cannot interfere with consenting adults living together. In 2025, a same-sex couple filed a [[writ]] petition with the [[Karnataka High Court]], arguing that certain tax provisions resulted in unequal economic treatment for same-sex couples.

==Legal history==
===Background===
[[Marriage]] in [[India]] is governed under several federal laws. These laws allow for the solemnisation of marriages according to different [[Religion in Karnataka|religion]]s, notably [[Hinduism in Karnataka|Hinduism]], [[Christianity in Karnataka|Christianity]], and Islam. Every citizen has the right to choose which law will apply to them based on their community or religion. These laws are the ''[[Hindu Marriage Act, 1955]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://bokakhat.gov.in/pdf/The_hindu_marriage_act.pdf|title=Hindu Marriage Act, 1955|work=bokakhat|accessdate=September 5, 2022}}</ref> which governs matters of marriage, separation and divorce for Hindus, [[Jainism in Karnataka|Jains]], Buddhists and Sikhs, the ''[[The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872|Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872]]'',<ref>{{cite web |title=The Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 |url=https://lawyerslaw.org/the-indian-christian-marriage-act-1872/ |website=lawyerslaw.org |access-date=4 June 2018}}</ref> and the ''[[Muslim personal law in India|Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1937-26.pdf|title= Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937|accessdate=September 6, 2022|work=legislative.gov.in}}</ref> In addition, the ''Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936'' and the ''Anand Marriage Act, 1909'' regulate the marriages of Parsis and Sikhs.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/2476/1/a1936_____3.pdf|title=Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936|work=www.indiacode.nic.in|accessdate=September 6, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1909-07.pdf|title=Anand Marriage Act, 1909|work=legislative.gov.in|accessdate=September 6, 2022}}</ref> The ''[[Special Marriage Act, 1954]]'' (SMA) allows all Indian citizens to marry regardless of the religion of either party.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/special-marriage-act-1954-inter-caste-inter-faith-love-jihad-bengaluru-kannada-56328|title=ಪ್ರೀತಿ, ಮದುವೆ, ಕಾನೂನು: ಒಂದು ವಿಶೇಷ ಕಾಯ್ದೆ|work=Citizen Matters|date=27 January 2021|language=kn}}</ref> Marriage officers appointed by the government may solemnize and register marriages contracted under the SMA, which are registered with the state as a civil contract. The act is particularly popular among [[Interfaith marriage|interfaith couples]], [[Inter-caste marriage|inter-caste couples]], and spouses with [[Atheism|no religious beliefs]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1954-43_1.pdf|title=The Special Marriage Act, 1954|work=legislative.gov|accessdate=September 5, 2022}}</ref> None of these acts explicitly bans [[same-sex marriage]].

On 14 February 2006, the [[Supreme Court of India]] ruled in ''Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar'' that the [[States and union territories of India|states and union territories]] are obliged to register all marriages performed under the federal laws. The court's ruling was expected to reduce instances of [[child marriage]]s, [[bigamy]], cases of [[domestic violence]] and unlawful abandonment.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://legal-wires.com/case-study/case-study-smt-seema-v-ashwin-kumar-case/|title= Case Study: Smt Seema v. Ashwin Kumar|date=21 October 2022|work=Legal Wires}}</ref> Subsequently, the [[Government of Karnataka]] published the ''Karnataka Marriage (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 2006'' in the ''Karnataka Gazette'' on 18 April 2006. The measure provides for the registration of all marriages solemnized in the state irrespective of the religion of the parties. It created local registrars of marriages, which shall issue [[Marriage license|marriage certificates]] upon reception of memorandums of marriage filed by the spouses. The registrar may refuse to issue the license if the parties fail to meet the requirements to marry under the national law of their religion or community. The marriage certificate requires the names of the "bride" and the "bridegroom".<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.bareactslive.com/KAR/kar205.htm#0|title=Karnataka Marriage (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Rules, 2006|work=Bare Acts Live|accessdate=15 September 2022}}</ref> The ''Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976'' does not explicitly ban same-sex marriages, and defines marriage simply as including [[remarriage]].<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.bareactslive.com/KAR/kar204.htm#0|title=Karnataka Marriages (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1976|work=Bare Acts Live|accessdate=15 September 2022}}</ref>

Traditional Kannada marriages ({{langx|kn|ಮದುವೆ}}, {{transliteration|kn|maduve}}; {{langx|tcy|ಮದಿಮೆ}}, {{transliteration|tcy|madime}}) are deeply rooted in custom and hold significant cultural importance. They involve elaborate pre-wedding preparations and culminate in key rituals, including the tying of the ''[[mangala sutra]]'' and the ''[[saptapadi]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://seasons5.com.au/kannada-wedding-venue-melbourne/|title=Kannada Wedding Traditions & Rituals|work=Seasons 5|access-date=5 May 2026}}</ref> [[Arranged marriage in the Indian subcontinent|Arranged marriage]] remains the prevailing norm across India, accounting for the vast majority of unions, and often placing pressure on LGBT individuals to marry partners of the opposite sex. Nevertheless, some same-sex couples have participated in traditional marriage ceremonies, although the marriages lack legal status in Karnataka. Nived Antony Chullickal and Abdul Rahim, originally from [[Kerala]], were married in [[Bangalore]] in December 2019.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://keralakaumudi.com/en/news/news.php?id=215153&u=kerala-gay-couple-gets-married-in-bengaluru-215153|title=Kerala gay couple gets married in Bengaluru|date=30 December 2019|work=Kaumudi}}</ref> "I really just wanted to get married to my boyfriend and shared pre-wedding photoshoot, firstly, as a message to everyone that it is better to be late than never and second, it is so good to come out and marry your partner. Our wedding was like any other wedding. I also wanted it to be an inspiration for people, so that they too can do the same, and now so many people have called me and I really feel good that I have been an inspiration for all", Chullickal told ''[[The News Minute]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/pictures-meet-two-gay-couples-kerala-who-recently-got-married-115064|title=In pictures: Meet the two gay couples from Kerala who recently got married|work=The News Minute|date=31 December 2019}}</ref> In 2020, members of the [[Kodava people|Kodava]] community called for the "ostracisation" of Dr. Sharath Ponnappa, a Kodava, because he chose to wear traditional Kodava attire, the {{transliteration|kfa|kupya-chele}} ({{langx|kfa|ಕುಪ್ಯ-ಚೇಲೆ}}),{{efn|The {{transliteration|kfa|kupya-chele}} consists of the {{transliteration|kfa|kupya}}, a wraparound robe, and the {{transliteration|kfa|chele}}, a gold-embroidered silk sash worn around the waist. The {{transliteration|kfa|kupya-chele}} is worn by men on ceremonial occasions.}} at his marriage to Sundeep Dosanj, a [[Punjabi Americans|Punjabi American]], in the [[United States]] on 26 September 2020. K.S. Devaiah, the president of the Kodava Samaja in [[Madikeri]], a community group representing Kodava interests, noted that while there had been several instances of inter-caste marriages, this was the first same-sex marriage in the community. "This wedding, where the couple wore traditional Kodava attire, is an insult to the entire community. Hence, after a meeting the members of the Kodava Samaja, we have recommended ostracisation of Sharath Ponnappa from the community. [...] Gay marriage is one thing and wearing sacred Kodava attire to solemnise a gay marriage is another thing. We are against the latter", said Devaiah.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/india/gay-wedding-in-us-in-traditional-kodava-attire-angers-martial-community-back-home-in-karnataka-2945731.html|title=Gay Wedding in US in Traditional Kodava Attire Angers Martial Community Back Home in Karnataka|work=News18|date=9 October 2020}}</ref> Ponnappa, a [[California]] doctor, responded to the controversy, saying, "We knew there would be dissenters, but we have literally been fighting for acceptance since the day we were born, fighting to survive and be treated the same as our peers. However, we proudly choose to live our truth, celebrate our same-sex marriage and encourage the dissenters to open their minds and engage in positive dialogue to understand that all humans are created equally and deserve respect and love."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/kodava-us-gay-marriage-attire-6717645/|title=After use of traditional attire in gay marriage ceremony, Kodava body calls for boycott of California doctor|work=The Indian Express|date=11 October 2020|first=Darshan|last=Devaiah}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/be-right-side-history-gay-couple-kodavas-outraging-over-their-wedding-attire-135084|title=Be on right side of history: Gay couple to Kodavas outraging over their wedding attire|work=The News Minute|date=11 October 2020|first=Prajwal|last=Bhat}}</ref>

===Live-in relationships===
{{Infobox subdivision type
|name=[[Recognition of same-sex unions in India]]
|map={{Same-sex marriage in India|width=300}}
}}

[[Cohabitation|Live-in relationships]] ({{langx|kn|ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವಾಸಿಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ}}, {{transliteration|kn|oṭṭige vāsisuva sambandha}}, {{IPA|kn|ˈɔʈːɪge ˈʋaːsɪsʊʋa ˈsɐmbɐn̪d̪ʱa|pron}}, or {{lang|kn|ಲಿವ್-ಇನ್ ರಿಲೇಶನ್}},<ref>{{cite web|url=https://vijaykarnataka.com/lifestyle/relationship/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-live-in-relationship/articleshow/123714851.cms|title=ಯುವಕರು ಲಿವ್-ಇನ್ ಸಂಬಂಧವನ್ನು ಆಯ್ಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಕಾರಣವೇನು?|language=kn|date=5 September 2025|work=Vijay Karnataka}}</ref> {{transliteration|kn|liv-in rilēśan}}) are not illegal in Karnataka. The Indian Supreme Court has held that adults have a constitutional right to live together without being married, that police cannot interfere with consenting adults living together, and that live-in relationships are not unlawful. However, live-in relationships do not confer all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. The [[Karnataka High Court]] has ruled that the criminal offence of [[Marital rape|marital cruelty]] under Section 498A of the [[Indian Penal Code]] applies to live-in relationships,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-section-498a-ipc-applicability-void-marriage-311535|title=Offence Of Cruelty Attracted Even To Live-In Relationships, Void & Voidable Marriages: Karnataka High Court|date=28 November 2025|work=LiveLaw|first=Mustafa|last=Plumber}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanherald.com/india/karnataka/cruelty-under-ipc-section-498a-attracted-even-in-live-in-relationship-cases-karnataka-high-court-3811357|title=Cruelty under IPC section 498A attracted even in live-in relationship cases: Karnataka High Court|date=26 November 2025|first=Ambarish|last=B|work=Deccan Herald}}</ref> and has affirmed in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling in ''D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal'' that women in live-in relationships are protected from domestic violence under the ''[[Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005]]''.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66af2607dba6b5343704f|title=Mr. V.K.V Sarma v. Ms. Indra Sarma|work=Casmine|date=12 August 2011}}</ref> However, these state cases involved heterosexual couples. The Karnataka High Court has never ruled on a case involving same-sex live-in relationships, meaning that same-sex couples remain in a gray area. This signifies that their live-in relationships might not automatically enjoy protections that heterosexual "marriage-like" relationships receive.

In 2025, a same-sex couple, Anurag Kalia and Akhilesh Godi, filed a [[writ]] petition with the Karnataka High Court, arguing that certain tax provisions resulted in unequal economic treatment for same-sex couples. Godi had gifted Kalia a gold bracelet he had received from his father as part of the family heirloom. Under the ''[[Income-tax Act, 2025|Income Tax Act]]'', if the aggregate value of money or assets received during a year exceeds [[Indian rupee|₹]]50,000, the amount is taxed as "income from other sources". Items received from a "relative" are excluded from this provision. However, because their relationship is not legally recognized as a marriage in India, Kalia did not qualify as a "relative". The petition argues that this treatment violates Article 14 and 15 of the [[Constitution of India]], and that the statutory exemption for "relative[s]" should apply equally to same-sex partners.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/finance/same-sex-couples-again-question-uneven-tax-law/articleshow/124692825.cms|title=Same-sex couples again question uneven tax law|work=Economic Times|date=20 October 2025|first=Sugata|last=Ghosh}}</ref>

===Transgender and intersex issues===
Like most of [[South Asia]], Karnataka recognizes a traditional [[third gender]] community known as ''[[Hijra (South Asia)|hijra]]'' ({{lang|kn|ಹಿಜಡಾ}}, {{transliteration|kn|hijaḍā}}), historically holding respected community roles, and known for their distinct culture, communities led by [[gurus]], and traditional roles as performers. In Karnataka, the community is also referred to as {{transliteration|kn|jōgappa}} ({{lang|kn|ಜೋಗಪ್ಪ}}, {{IPA|kn|ˈdʒoːgɐpːa|pron}}), though they differ from the ''hijra'' culture. They are biologically male, but transition to female roles after being "possessed" by the goddess [[Renuka|Yellamma]], serving as spiritual priests, healers and performers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://thewire.in/society/gender/jogappas-goddess-gender|title=Jogappas, the Men Who Marry a Goddess to Become Women|date=1 December 2016|first=Makepeace|last=Sitlhou|work=The Wire}}</ref> The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in ''[[Supriyo v. Union of India]]'' held that the Indian Constitution does not require the legalisation of same-sex marriages but affirmed that transgender people may marry opposite-sex partners.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Legal-Progression-Social-Implications-Case-Comment-on-Supriyo-Chakraborty-Anr-v-Union-Of-India|title="Legal Progression & Social Implications Case Comment on Supriyo Chakraborty & Anr v. Union Of India"|work=Manupatra|date=27 May 2024|first1=Rajeev Pratap|last1=Singh Bhutyal|first2=Swasti|last2=Arya}}</ref> Some marriages of transgender people had already taken place prior to ''Supriyo''. In January 2018, transgender activist [[Akkai Padmashali]] married her partner in Bangalore. A second marriage took place in the same city in May 2018. The couple, originally from [[Krishnagiri]] in [[Tamil Nadu]], said, "We are glad that our marriage was registered and it is a special feeling and will cherish this our entire life." One of the partners added, "My family opposed our union and threatened me with dire consequences. They harassed me mentally and tried to blackmail me emotionally. But we had made up our mind and a few of our friends also supported us. We got married at a temple, but could not register it in Tamil Nadu due to some formalities which could not be fulfilled for various reasons. We took the help of Akkai and got the marriage registered. Without Akkai, we don't know how this could have happened." The marriage could be registered under the ''Hindu Marriage Act'' as both partners were of the opposite legal sex.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/120618/big-leap-transgender-gets-her-marriage-registered.html|title=Big leap: Transgender gets her marriage registered|work=Deccan Chronicle|date=12 June 2018|location=Bangalore}}</ref>

==Historical and customary recognition==
The [[Halakki Vokkaliga]], an indigenous tribe living in the [[Uttara Kannada]] district, have been celebrating traditional lesbian marriages for "so long that none living in the community now knows when and how it began". One such wedding, known in [[Kannada language|Kannada]] as {{transliteration|kn|daḍḍuve maduve}} ({{lang|kn|ದಡ್ಡುವೆ ಮದುವೆ}}), is performed every year to honour [[Indra]] and pray that "the rain shouldn't be more or less than required". After the procession and rituals, the newly-weds, both of whom are dressed in [[sari]]s, are blessed and given gifts just as at any other wedding. A recent {{transliteration|kn|daḍḍuve maduve}} in 2022 took place in a Hindu temple honouring [[Ganesha]], who holds importance for the Halakki Vokkaliga.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.news18.com/news/buzz/lesbian-wedding-is-a-tradition-within-this-karnataka-community-heres-why-5759539.html|title=Lesbian Wedding Is A Tradition Within This Karnataka Community; Here's Why|work=News 18|date=16 August 2022|last=Kalasa|first=Soumya}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://tv9kannada.com/karnataka/uttara-kannada/viral-news-lesbian-wedding-is-a-tradition-in-this-uttara-kannada-halakki-okkaliga-community-here-is-why-sct-au49-429330.html|title=ಉತ್ತರ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಈ ಜಾತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಎಷ್ಟೋ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ ಸಲಿಂಗ ವಿವಾಹ; ಕಾರಣ ಗೊತ್ತಾ?|work=TV9 Kannada|date=17 August 2022|last=Chakre|first=Sushma|language=kn}}</ref>

==See also==
*[[LGBTQ rights in Karnataka]]
*[[LGBTQ rights in India]]
*[[Recognition of same-sex unions in India]]
*''[[Supriyo v. Union of India]]''

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{LGBT in India}}

[[Category:Recognition of same-sex unions in India by state|Karnataka]]
[[Category:Politics of Karnataka]]

Recognition of same-sex unions in Karnataka - Revision history

Flightsvilla at 21:52, 5 May 2026