The state of Uttarakhand has attained the hallowed position of being the first state to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) under Article 44 of the Constitution. The UCC would apply uniformly to people across religions, not including tribal populations. The criticism against it is that there has not been sufficient discussion among communities or even in the state legislature. While many of its provisions are controversial, an issue that has raised much public debate is the provision for mandatory registration of live-in relationships. The Act has entered a totally new terrain by introducing provisions of formalising what had hitherto been in the realm of informal sexual relationships between consenting adults and raises constitutional concerns of privacy and personal liberty.
The Code requires the partners to notify the registrar within a month of entering into a live-in relationship and also while terminating it.
One fails to understand the purpose for which the provisions of registering a live-in relationship have been included in the UCC drafted by an expert committee which was headed by Justice (retd) Ranjana Desai of the Supreme Court. This defeats the very purpose of a live-in relationship as it renders it on par with a formal marriage, with conditions for entering into a relationship similar to a marriage contract — monogamy, prohibited degrees of relationships, etc. Also, as is the case in marriage (and divorce), one has to register the contract with the registrar at the time of entering into a relationship and also at the time of exiting from it. Non-registration has been rendered into a criminal offence with a fine of Rs 10,000 and/or imprisonment of three months. In case of failure to produce a certificate of live-in relationship, a term of six months is prescribed on conviction and/or fine of Rs 25,000. These stipulations transform the entire relationship from an informal one into one governed by a draconian and rigid criminal law. The entire purpose seems to be to dissuade young couples from entering into such relationships and control their sexuality, and raises questions about individual privacy and liberty.
The Code defines this heterosexual relationship as a “relationship between a man and a woman” who “cohabit in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage, provided that such relations are not prohibited.”
It is reported that when asked about these provisions, an official in the state government claimed that “concerns over heinous crimes among live-in couples” was the key imperative behind this provision. He further stated: “When the expert committee went to remote areas in Uttarakhand for public consultation, incidents (of live-in crimes) were fresh in the minds of the people. During public consultation, parents and the elderly insisted that there must be something in law to protect young girls. While personal freedom is important, protection of youngsters is also important. The committee found a way to ensure that.”
But young adults may not want this kind of state protection which takes away their freedom to not choose marriage but to stay in a consensual relationship without the intrusion of the state apparatus into their private life. This type of protectionist approach is parochial and patriarchal, as it intrudes into the domain of privacy which is recognised as a fundamental right in the Puttaswamy ruling.
The Code provides for maintenance for a woman “deserted” by her partner, similar to a married woman. Section 388 states: “If a woman gets deserted by her live-in partner, she shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her live-in partner, for which she may approach the competent Court having jurisdiction over the place where they last cohabited.”
These relationships are already protected under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 where they are termed as “domestic relationships”. When women in relationships “in the nature of marriage” complain of domestic violence, they are entitled to claim maintenance from their partners.
The Code explicitly stipulates that a child born in a live-relationship is a legitimate child. This is the prevailing legal position but under this UCC it is codified as law.
The proposed law will apply to those living in Uttarakhand as well as residents of Uttarakhand living elsewhere in India. Section 378 of the Code requires submission of a statement by those in a live-in relationship. “It shall be obligatory for partners to live-in relationship within the state, whether they are resident(s) of Uttarakhand or not, to submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub-section 1 of section 381 to the registrar within whose jurisdiction they are living,” it further states. “Any resident(s) of Uttarakhand staying in a live-in relationship outside the territory of the state, may submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub section 1 of section 381 to the registrar within whose jurisdiction such resident ordinarily resides,” it adds.
The most draconian part of this entire provision is that the registrar, with powers similar to those granted to the magistrate in the anti-conversion legislation, can conduct a “summary inquiry”, summoning the live-in partners or “any other persons” for verification. This has scope for misuse by family and society at large, besides infantilising adult women. The registrar is not a judicial officer unlike the magistrate and has no training in investigation. The registrar has to then forward the record to the police station concerned and, in case either partner is less than 21 years of age, inform the parents or guardians (ironically, a girl can marry at 18 without parental permission). With such stringent stipulations, the entire purpose of a live-in relationship is totally negated.
The writer is a women’s rights lawyer
How shahi paneer, naan led cops to forgery accused couplePremium Story
What makes ants such great communicatorsPremium Story
Butter chicken fight: Can Moti Mahal, Daryaganj claim invention?Premium Story
Teri Baaton Mein Aisa Uljha Jiya confused mish-mash of genresPremium Story
How to deal with a difficult boss in the workplacePremium Story
How Ingmar Bergman and Liv Ullmann inspired this feature filmPremium Story
Aarya Season 3 - Antim Vaar ends with a whimperPremium Story
The Iron Claw is a befuddling wrestling tragedyPremium Story
Narangi Maas: From royals to your kitchenPremium Story
The entire purpose seems to dissuade young couples from entering into such relationships and control their sexuality
10
2
12.02.2024
The state of Uttarakhand has attained the hallowed position of being the first state to enact a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) under Article 44 of the Constitution. The UCC would apply uniformly to people across religions, not including tribal populations. The criticism against it is that there has not been sufficient discussion among communities or even in the state legislature. While many of its provisions are controversial, an issue that has raised much public debate is the provision for mandatory registration of live-in relationships. The Act has entered a totally new terrain by introducing provisions of formalising what had hitherto been in the realm of informal sexual relationships between consenting adults and raises constitutional concerns of privacy and personal liberty.
The Code requires the partners to notify the registrar within a month of entering into a live-in relationship and also while terminating it.
One fails to understand the purpose for which the provisions of registering a live-in relationship have been included in the UCC drafted by an expert committee which was headed by Justice (retd) Ranjana Desai of the Supreme Court. This defeats the very purpose of a live-in relationship as it renders it on par with a formal marriage, with conditions for entering into a relationship similar to a marriage contract — monogamy, prohibited degrees of relationships, etc. Also, as is the case in marriage (and divorce), one has to register the contract with the registrar at the time of entering into a relationship and also at the time of exiting from it. Non-registration has been rendered into a criminal........
© Indian Express
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
