“Exploring the Debate: Live-in Relationships under the Lens of Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code”

The proposed Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code addresses not only the personal laws of marriage, inheritance, and succession but also delves into the realm of live-in relationships, a relatively new concept in Indian law. Drawing heavily from existing laws such as the Hindu Marriage Act and the Indian Succession Act, the UCC attempts to provide clarity on matters related to live-in relationships, marriage, and succession. However, this aspect of the UCC has raised questions about individual privacy, personal liberty, and the complicated procedure involved.

The UCC defines a live-in relationship as a cohabitation between a man and a woman in a shared household that resembles marriage. The bill treats live-in relationships as equivalent to marriage in certain aspects. For instance, if one partner deserts the other, the deserted partner is entitled to seek maintenance, similar to the rights granted in a traditional marriage. The bill also mandates the registration of live-in relationships with a state-appointed Registrar, requiring couples to disclose their identities, enter into the relationship, and terminate it. Furthermore, children born out of a live-in relationship are recognized as legitimate children, which is a progressive step towards ensuring their rights.

However, these measures raise concerns regarding the level of regulation and intrusion into personal relationships. The requirement to register and disclose the termination of a live-in relationship infringes on personal privacy. The involvement of a Registrar empowers them to conduct an inquiry to determine the validity of the relationship, potentially leading to interference by authorities or even third parties. This level of policing in personal relationships may affect the privacy and autonomy of individuals involved.

Another issue pertains to the lack of a defined timeline for a live-in relationship. Unlike marriage, which is typically considered a lifelong commitment, the UCC does not provide clarity on the duration of a live-in relationship that grants rights similar to marriage. While the Domestic Violence Act refers to a relationship “in the nature of marriage,” implying a long-term commitment, the UCC fails to address this aspect. As a result, any live-in relationship, regardless of its duration, becomes eligible for rights similar to those of a traditional marriage once registered.

This approach may be troubling for individuals who choose to refrain from the institution of marriage. By equating live-in relationships with marriage and granting similar rights, the bill may inadvertently infringe upon the personal choices and preferences of those who opt for an alternative lifestyle. While the government’s intention to address concerns of violence within live-in relationships is commendable, critics argue that policing and protection can be provided without the need for registration or state permission.

The implementation and enforcement of this aspect of the UCC raise further concerns. Who will monitor and check the nature of individuals’ relationships? The requirement for a certificate and the involvement of a registrar can potentially lead to not only state surveillance but also interference by other individuals. Additionally, the bill may face legal challenges, particularly concerning the right to privacy. The state must demonstrate a compelling interest in knowing the nature of individuals’ relationships, which may prove problematic in light of the landmark ruling on the right to privacy.

In conclusion, the inclusion of live-in relationships in the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code has generated controversies surrounding privacy, personal liberty, and interference in personal relationships. While the bill seeks to provide protection and address issues of violence, the level of regulation and intrusion into personal lives raises few concerns. The requirement for registration, disclosure, and the involvement of a registrar infringe upon privacy rights and may face legal challenges. In fast changing social fabric, it is imperative to strike a balance between protecting individuals and respecting their personal choices and autonomy.

visit arjasrikanth.in / @DrArjasreekanth for more insights