This article, written by Atishay Jain, examines the complexities surrounding live-in relationships in India under the new Uniform Civil Code (UCC). The views expressed in this article are personal and aim to shed light on both the legal safeguards and challenges posed by these regulations.
Uttarakhand recently introduced a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) that mandates the registration of opposite-sex live-in relationships and criminalizes unregistered cohabitation. While some provisions aim to protect vulnerable partners, others raise concerns about privacy, autonomy, and potential misuse of law.
Live-in Relationships: Legal Recognition vs. Challenges
One of the key provisions of the UCC is that children born from live-in relationships will be considered legitimate. This is a positive step compared to previous legal ambiguities regarding the status of such children. Additionally, the law ensures maintenance rights for a deserted live-in partner, a much-needed protection.
However, two major issues arise:
- Lack of Maintenance Post-Termination: The UCC only provides maintenance in cases of desertion, not for general termination of the relationship. This leaves partners, especially women, financially vulnerable if the relationship ends without desertion.
- Ambiguous Definition of Live-in Relationships: The UCC defines a live-in relationship as ‘in the nature of marriage,’ a vague term that could lead to legal misinterpretations. Not all live-in relationships function like marriages, and many individuals do not see themselves as being ‘married in all but name.’
Impact on Privacy and Personal Choices
The UCC requires live-in relationships to be registered within one month of commencement. If one or both partners fail to register, they could face fines or even imprisonment. This law also mandates informing the police and guardians when individuals under 21 enter a live-in relationship.
Why is this problematic?
- Violation of Privacy: The Supreme Court, in Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), upheld an adult’s right to choose their partner and engage in consensual relationships. Requiring police and guardian notification violates this right.
- Increased Social Pressure: Many inter-caste and inter-religious couples already face societal disapproval. Reporting live-in relationships to authorities can make them even more vulnerable to honor-based violence and social stigma.
- Overreach of State Control: By requiring registration, the UCC indirectly discourages live-in relationships, which should ideally be a matter of personal choice rather than legal scrutiny.
The Bigger Picture: A Need for Balanced Laws
While the intent behind the UCC’s live-in relationship provisions is to offer legal protections, its rigid framework raises concerns about personal freedoms. Instead of criminalizing unregistered relationships, a more effective approach would be to:
- Provide clear legal definitions of live-in relationships.
- Ensure maintenance rights for all live-in partners post-breakup, not just in cases of desertion.
- Protect individuals from social and legal harassment rather than enforcing mandatory registration.
Conclusion
Regulating live-in relationships should focus on safeguarding individuals rather than imposing excessive legal obligations. Striking a balance between protection and personal freedom is essential to ensure that live-in couples in India can live with dignity, security, and autonomy.
