Same-sex mariage. What will be the verdict?

nteresting arguments are being made in a historic hearing that will decide whether to allow same-sex marriage in India.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice D.Y.  Chandrachud has been inquiring since April 18. The investigation into these petitions has drawn the attention of the world.
Six sessions have been completed so far in this inquiry. 
A wide range of comments and reports have been received from various individuals and groups. Some of them are unusual, some are wonderful.
Senior advocate Mukul Rothaki, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the Constitution of India has given everyone the right to live their lives with dignity. Chief Justice D.Y  Chandrachud, speaking on the current same-sex marriage debates, said that male or female is not determined by genitalia.
Union government's Solicitor General Tushar Mehta questioned,"what would happen to women-centric laws and if genitalia did not determine one's sex, how would courts decide whether a person could be tried under a particular section of the law?".
Senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy said same-sex marriages not only provide dignity but also other rights to the couple, including the fundamental right to get life insurance.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referred to same-sex relationships and sex as "prohibited relationships".
Questioning the necessity of heterosexuality for marriage, Chief Justice D.Y Chandrachud emphasized that same-sex relationships are "not just physical".
The central government filed a reply in this case pointing out that same-sex marriage and its recognition are the views and demands of the urbanaites. This can have an impact and influence among other sections of the society. It said that recognizing such marriages would affect social balance.
It was strongly argued by the central government that the court should never hear a same-sex marriage case. During the hearing two days ago, the same argument was emphatically put forward.'
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta now strongly argued that the court should allow the Parliament to debate and decide on the recognition of same-sex marriage.
Thus as the argument continues interestingly, the verdict of the Supreme Court is being looked forward with great expectations. Is it going to let Parliament decide? Or pass a sensational verdict? Let's wait and see!