INTRODUCTION
The Uttrakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) will be implemented on 9 November, which is its foundation day, making it mandatory for live-in couples to register themselves within one month.
The Concurrent list empowers the state government to legislate on personal matters such as marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, adoption, etc., and the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) Enshrined in the Constitution of India vests the state with the responsibility to bring every citizen of India under common personal law irrespective of religion i.e. UCC. To achieve the same, the state of Uttrakhand expanded the scope of personal law and framed the laws regarding live-in relationships, which is comparatively a new phenomenon in terms of social acceptance where marriage is the norm and hence in turn legally unexplored. While the intent of legislation can be assimilated from the reports before the final draft, the consequences of each provision must be accounted for which will impact every aspect of social life.
LEGALITY OF LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA
There is no explicit law legalizing live-in relationships or any piece of legislation criminalizing it. Therefore, the current legal position of live-in relationships in India has been derived from various judicial pronouncements on the personal nature of the matter and the protection of the couple’s rights in a shared domestic setup. Protecting the rights of the parties and the rights of the child born out of such relationships has been the major concern while dealing with the legal boundaries in live-in relationships. Basic civil rights cannot be infringed even when societal norms suggest otherwise. In Lata Singh v. State of UP The court granted police protection to live-in relationship couples and protected their right to choose their life partner. The Supreme Court, through various judgments, has held the liberal standpoint by recognizing the rights of the individual in their personal lives and appropriately protecting the fundamental rights of every citizen of India.
In the case of S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, one of the initial judgments regarding live-in relationships, the Supreme Court stated that it is not illegal to be in a live-in relationship implying that it is permissible. It comes under the ambit of Right to Life, in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, The court gave protection to women in a live-in relationship by entitling them to maintenance under the DV Act.. It laid down the conditions where a live-in relationship can be treated as marriage and the woman’s rights are protected if a man deserts her. The most recent judgment in Gurwinder Singh & Anr v State of Punjab Concerns about the life and liberty of the couple, providing necessary protection given the apprehension of threats and ignoring the HC order in contravention to that.
Hence, the top court has time and again upheld the legal nature of live-in relationships giving supremacy to the right to life and liberty and the protection to the parties.
MANDATORY REGISTRATION IN UTTRAKHAND
Before the commencement of the UCC, addressing live-in relationships, the Expert Committee Report Observed the growing trend among the youth who opt to stay in live-in relationships outside the traditional institution of marriage, which with no legal recognition, go unnoticed even when the partners violate the law. With the rising incidences of crime, it was found necessary to keep a record of the individuals involved in live=in relationships. The recurring suggestion received from the stakeholders through field visits in the state was reported. Favoured compulsory registration of live-in relationships so that the unscrupulous are deterred from taking advantage of gullible youth and the rights and interests of partners and children are protected.
The provisions of the act make it mandatory for the partners in a live-in relationship within the state or for the residents of Uttrakhand staying in a live-in relationship outside the territory to submit a statement of live-in relationship to the registrar who after appropriate inquiry can either accept or refuse such statement and issue a registration certificate in the case of acceptance. It provides for the circumstances when a relationship cannot be registered, the legitimacy of a child, maintenance, procedure for registration and termination of a live-in relationship, etc. The penal provision states that non-compliance with the statement of registration within one month of entering into the relationship can be held liable with ‘imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine not exceeding ten thousand rupees or with both.’ The purpose of Part 3 of UCC is to maintain records and secure rights regarding Live-in relationships.
CONSEQUENCES
The dynamics of our current society, where it is unconventional to opt for an alternative to the sacred institution of marriage, the mandate to register such relationships proposed by the recent state legislation in a vacuum of laws, and the precedents set by the judicial rulings can have multifarious impact not just on the parties involved but the societal structure as a whole.
i)Rights of a child: The act states, “Any child of a live-in relationship shall be a legitimate child of the couple.” It ensures the status of a child born out of such union and further inheritance rights while reaffirming the Supreme Court’s stand in Tulsa & Ors v Durghatiya & Ors, That the children born out of live-in relationships cannot be deemed illegitimate and must not be deprived of the right to inherit parental property. It unequivocally strikes out the legitimacy question and inheritance rights of a child.
ii)Right to Palimony: Palimony refers to maintenance in the case of separation in a live-in relationship. The landmark judgment of Velusamy vs. D. Patchaiammal affirmed the right to maintenance by women out of a live-in relationship u/s 125 of CrPC, subject to certain conditions like the duration of the relationship, public acknowledgement, the performance of marital duties, and social recognition, making it a “relationship in the nature marriage”. But the provision u/s 388 of the Act states, “If a woman gets deserted by her live-in partner, she shall be entitled to claim maintenance” removing the restrictive conditions set out by the court which is to be established before the court, adding to the distress of aggrieved women seeking maintenance.
iii)Consensual cohabitation: Live-in relationships cannot be registered where one of the persons is married or already in a live-in relationship, is a minor, or where the consent was obtained by coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, or fraud as to any material fact or circumstance concerning the other partner. It will make the parties, who are eligible to give valid consent, aware of the true circumstances and minimize crimes.
Iv)State interference: Even if it is for maintaining records, mandatory registration and statement of termination take away the right of an individual to choose to involve the state in their relationship, especially in cases where live-in relationships in preferred over marriage by some couple due to the stringently codified marriage laws. It codifies the whole procedure regarding the affair of live-in relationships, having its own risk and reward as for many it may be a state interference but for others, it can provide a security net protecting their rights in a socially unsanctioned union.
v)Gender bias: The law affects both genders disproportionately, as women are at the receiving end in an orthodox society hence legal registration of live-in relationships discourages women (from the age of 18-21) more, in the name of dignity and chastity of a woman once the parents are informed. But in such relationships, a shared domestic household makes women more vulnerable to domestic violence as well. The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 protects women from violence in a domestic relationship in a ‘shared household’ and SC in the case of Indra Sarma v V.K.V Sarma Ruled that live-in relationships can be considered domestic relationships granting women protection under the act. Registering live-in relationships and issuance of such certificates may provide evidentiary proof of a ‘shared household’ akin to marriage in live-in relationships, making it easier to get protection under the DV Act.
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that making registration a mandate can have severe implications while voluntary registration may instill flexibility which can have far-reaching benefits. The unique demography and culture must be taken into consideration along with suggestions from the stakeholders, which may vary from state to state, before rolling out any legislation as social acceptance cannot be achieved by coercive laws. A central law on the live-in relationships in a traditional society will lead to the suppression of minority views over conventional majoritarian views. Uttarakhand’s state legislation expanding the scope of UCC to regulate live-in relationships originates with a good intent to protect the rights of the individual but it needs further evaluation on how it may be implemented in a society where marriage is still a sacrament and alternative to that is a stigmatized cohabitation.
Author(s) Name: Anjali Barmola (South Calcutta Law College, Kolkata)
