Why in the news?
The recently introduced Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill mandates compulsory registration for all live-in relationships in the state, irrespective of residency with registrar.
More on the News
- Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) requires compulsory registration with the state while starting or ending a live-in relationship for heterosexual couples.
- This record will be kept in a police station.
- There is also provision for providing for maintenance to the woman when “deserted” by her partner.
- It also prescribes jail term of up to six months for not producing a “certificate” of the relationship.
- It imposes stringent terms on a consensual relationship between adults and raises constitutional concerns of privacy and personal liberty.
Live in Relationship in India
- In India, live-in relationships are not explicitly governed by law or custom.
- However, through judicial decisions, the Supreme Court has expanded the recognition of live-in partnerships and established guidelines for handling such relationships.
- Supreme Court Judgements related to Live-In Relationships:
- Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1978): The Supreme Court observed live-in relationships as legal if they meet the requirements of marriage, such as legal age, consent, and mental capacity.
- Lalita Toppo vs The State Of Jharkhand (2018): SC ruled under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA 2005) the live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- Bharatha Matha vs R Vijay Renganathan & Ors (2010): SC held that the children born through live-in relations will be considered legitimate children and will be allowed share in the ancestral undivided property.
- Indra Sarma v. VKV Sarma (2013): The Court affirmed that entering into a mutual live-in relationship is not illegal if both partners are unmarried, and it does not constitute an offense.
How is Live-in Relationship Affecting Marriage as Institution?
Social change, global influence, urbanization, and cosmopolitan norms have increased acceptance of pre-marital cohabitation and live-in arrangements, especially among younger generations.
- Individual Autonomy: The concept of live-in relationships is rooted in the desire for personal autonomy and freedom of choice, especially in the face of historically prevalent arranged marriages and societal expectations.
- Evolving Views on Commitment: The concept of commitment has evolved to emphasize emotional connection, communication, and compatibility, reducing the sanctity of marriage as the ultimate symbol of commitment.
- Testing Compatibility: Live-in relationships offer a way to test domestic compatibility before marriage, addressing concerns about restrictive or cumbersome marriage procedures.
- Legal and Social Dynamics: Despite legal recognition, societal acceptance of live-in relationships challenges traditional family structures and raises debates on legal reforms.
- Family Impact: Live-in relationships challenge traditional family structures, leading to generational conflicts and societal tensions, especially in conservative communities.
- Economic Considerations: Concerns about financial stability, asset division in case of divorce, and prenuptial agreements is nudging toward live in relationships.
Conclusion
To address the ambiguity that often leads to conflicting opinions and judgments, it is imperative to enact separate legislation specifically addressing live-in relationships. Ambiguous clauses in current legislation must be revised to clearly define the status and rights of children born within such relationships.