Author- Rohan Yadav, 2nd year law student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
Abstract:
A landmark event occurred in the regulation of personal laws in India, when Uniform Civil Code (UCC) given under Article 44 of the Indian Constitution was enforced in Uttarakhand on January 27th, 2025. This watershed moment marked the first time in Independent India, when a civil code was enforced to regulate all the matters related to personal laws such as marriage, divorce, adoption, succession and inheritance, for everyone in a uniform manner, irrespective of religion, caste or creed. A unique feature of this law is its application to regulate the Live-in relations in Uttarakhand and among the residents of the state living elsewhere in India. This code also marks only the second time when Uniform Civil Code is being enforced in any part of India, after the Portuguese civil code of 1867 in Goa. Although the Code seeks to guarantee equality and uniformity, it poses serious concerns regarding autonomy, privacy, and the viability of government involvement in intimate relationships.
To the Point:
Over the past few decades in India, there has been a notable increase in the number of live-in relationships particularly in urban areas. The legal complications and obligations surrounding the institution of marriage are rapidly being abandoned or postponed by the younger generation. Before getting married, young couples would rather live together in the same household for a while to prioritize other essential components such as compatibility before marriage. According to a recent survey conducted by the Indian Express, 80% of individuals between the ages of 18 and 35 believe that living in is the best option. Thus, it is not very astonishing that the state of Uttarakhand has passed the UCC Act of 2024, which contains a separate part dedicated towards the regulation of live-in relationships.
Use of Legal Jargon:
- Live-In relationship: It is defined as “a relation between a man and a woman, who cohabit in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage, provided that such relationship is not prohibited under Part 3 of this code” as per Section 3 (4)(b) of the code.
- Child: It refers to “a biological child and includes an adopted child, an illegitimate child, or a child born through surrogacy or assisted reproductive technology” as per Section 3 (4)(a) of the code.
- Shared Household: Living under one roof in a rental property, a jointly owned home or owned by any one of them or any other type of housing.
- Cohabitation: Living together in a relationship resembling marriage without formalizing the union through legal marriage.
- Legitimacy: Legal recognition of children born out of wedlock, granting them rights equivalent to those born within marriage.
The Proof:
The salient provisions pertaining to regulation of live-in relationships is given under Part 3 of this code. They are as follows:
- Eligibility and Jurisdiction: It defines the live-in relationship between a man and a woman, both of whom have achieved 21 years of age. All Uttarakhand residents, including those who reside outside the state, as well as non-residents who live together in Uttarakhand are covered by the UCC.
- Mandatory Registration of Live-In Relationships: Those who are currently in a live–in relationship or considering the same must register themselves with the registrar of their respective jurisdiction by giving “a statement of live-in relationship”, which is defined as “a jointly signed statement depicting that a man and a woman are in a live-in relationship or intend to enter into such a relationship” as per section 3 (4)(d). Similarly, “a statement of termination” has to be submitted to the registrar, when the relationship ceases to exist and can be signed by both or either one of the parties.
- Legal Status of Children: Under section 379, children born into legally registered Live-in relationships are considered to be legitimate and have the same rights as children born into marriage. This eliminates the stigma that has historically been attached to children born outside of marriage and includes inheritance rights and maintenance entitlements.
- Powers of the Registrar: The registrar shall within 30 days from the receipt of a statement of live-in relationship shall issue a registration certificate in the prescribed format to the live-in couple or refuse to register such a relationship. The registrar has the power to initiate a summary inquiry in order to verify the contents of the statement of live-in relationship and has the discretion to even issue summons to the partners or any other person in order to verify the information provided. Moreover, after the issuance of a registration certificate, the registrar shall maintain registers for keeping a track of statements of live-in relationship and statements of termination under section 383(2). The code also mandates that the registrar give the live-in relationship statement to the head of the local police station for record-keeping purposes and notify the parents or guardians of any partner under the age of 21.
- Conditions where Live-in relationships will not be registered: The Live-in relationship will not be registered when the partners are within the ambit of “prohibited relationships” under Schedule 1, or at least one of the partners is married or already in a live-in relationship. Moreover, the registration may not be granted if one of the persons is a minor or whose consent has been obtained via fraud, coercion or undue influence.
- UCC Rules: Under the UCC rules issued on 2nd January 2025, it provided the procedure for registration which can be either done online or by submitting a 16 page form offline. It must contain details such as current relationship status of the partners (single, married, divorced, annulled, separated, or widowed) and proof of any prior live-in relationships. These documents to support it could be in the form of final decree annulling a marriage; final decree of divorce; death certificate of a spouse or certificate of terminated live-in relationship.Also, evidence of shared accommodation such as latest water or electricity bill, registration fee and Aadhaar-linked OTP among others.
Furthermore, before letting the live-in couple use the property, the landlord is required by law to confirm the registration certificate before letting the live-in couple use the property wherein failing to do so could result in harsh consequences for the landlord. The rules also require a religious leader, the head of the community, or an official from the relevant religious or community body to attest that the customs governing the application’s registrants permit a marriage between two individuals who are willing to live together.
- Maintenance: It says that if a woman’s live-in partner deserts her, she has the right to ask him for maintenance. Section 388 allows her to seek redress from the appropriate court.
- Penalties for non-compliance: Various types of penalties have been given under the code for different conditions such as:
- A live-in couple who fail to register their live-in arrangement within a month could be subject to: up to 3 months in imprisonment or fine not exceeding ₹10,000 or both under section 387(1) of the code.
- Any person who stays in a live-in couple relationship by providing false information in their statement of registration, which they knew is inherently false, or if they hide any important information from the registrar while applying for registration of their relationship, then they could be subject to up to 3 months in imprisonment or fine not exceeding 25,000 or both under section 387(2) of the code.
- Any person who stays in a live-in couple relationship and does not adhere to the submission of the statement of live-in relationship when required to do so under section 386 shall be subject to upon convocation up to 6 months in imprisonment or fine not exceeding 25,000 or both under section 387(3) of the code.
Concerns about the enforcement of the UCC Code on Live-in relationships:
The enforceability of Uniform Civil Code of 2024 in Uttarakhand especially on the Live-in relationship couples has some very beneficial impacts such as that children born from them are considered now as legitimate and it prioritizes consent as well as the overall well being of women by including maintenance, still it raises some serious questions. Some of the most essential gaps and concerns in the newly enforced code are as follows:
- Exclusion of LGBTQIA+ community:
One of the most striking gaps in the formation of this code is the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ people or who do not fall under the category of binary, thus undermining the very notions of inclusivity, uniformity and equality, which the code seeks to enforce. As defined under section 3 (4)(b) of the code, the UCC in entirety excludes transgender, non-binary, and same-sex couples from legal recognition and protection by defining relationships exclusively within a binary framework—recognizing only heterosexual unions between a “male” and a “female.” This direct indifference to the LGBTQIA+ community is particularly regressive given the recent landmark Supreme Court rulings which have upheld the rights of queer people to cohabitate with consent, such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023).
- Several contradictions between law related to marriage and Live-in relationships:
There are some key dichotomies between the laws and statutes governing the institution of marriages and those of UCC Code regulating live-in relationships in Uttarakhand such as the legal age of marriage for girls is 18 as per Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and Special Marriage Act of 1954 whereas under the UCC, girls have to wait until the age of 21 years to get the legal recognition of their live-in relationships. There has been no rational justification given to explain this flaw by the lawmakers that when a girl can marry someone once she attains the age of 18, why then, she has to again wait for 3 more years to enter in a legally recognized live-in relationship on her own without parental consent.
Moreover, non-registration of marriages have no serious penalties or imprisonment while the same is not the case with live-in relationships. Another important contradiction is that the UCC rules make it impractical for interfaith or inter–caste individuals to be in a live–in relationship due to the condition of having a certificate by the partners, certified by a religious head stating that the customs and norms which govern the respective partners, allow them to marry. The secularism outlined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution gets undermined when two consenting adults must obtain religious approval before they can live together.
Another major concern arises that the neither the legislation nor the judiciary has till date not satisfactorily disclosed how to ascertain the date from which a live-in relationship is considered to have started as people who fail to submit the statement of such a relationship within a month of entering such a relationship may be punished under Section 387(1).
- Dignity and Privacy:
The Fundamental Right to Privacy, as enshrined in the K.S Puttaswamy judgment of 2017 and the Fundamental Right to Dignity under Article 21 get seriously undermined under this code, especially for the live-in couples. Mandatory live-in relationship registration is an invasive state intrusion into people’s personal lives where couples are forced to divulge sensitive personal information to the government apparatus. The right to privacy is violated when the state puts a similar degree of restrictions upon the live-in relationships as those under marriage, by equating the two. The sharing of registration details with local police authorities is mandatorily required by the UCC. Police involvement in confirming the legitimacy of relationships might deter couples from registering or living together due to the possibility of sensitive personal information being misused or shared without authorisation can cause people to experience discrimination, blackmail, or targeted harassment, which undermines confidence in government agencies.
Also, there is a great chance that family members who don’t support interfaith, intercaste, or nonmarital relationships will engage in moral policing and intrusion. Even via obtaining information from landlords, people may attempt to harass these couples by making fictitious complaints to the local police. Moreover, the dignity of young adults (18-20 years) also gets violated due to the mandatory condition of obtaining parental consent, thus, obstructing their independent decision making power about their personal relationships.
Women will surely be the ones who suffer the most, from such harassment because they are frequently responsible for maintaining the sanctity of a family and sexual morality, which defeats one of the main provisions of this code to ensure greater dignity of women. This is because the society will blame the women majorly and thus, this code would act counter intuitively by imposing even greater restrictions on the freedom of speech, expression, movement and choice of women.
Caselaws:
- Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) SCC 755
The Supreme Court maintained the legitimacy of live-in relationships and established that these kinds of relationships ought to be shielded from social and legal biases. The standards it has used to determine such relationships are reminiscent of the notion that essentially, the institution of marriage is elevated and then used as a gauge to determine whether cohabiting couples who are not married are “in the nature” of marriage. According to the Court, the following additional components must be properly taken into account: the length of the relationship, the shared household, the financial arrangements and resource pooling, the domestic setup, the sexual intimacy, progeny and the intention and behaviour of the parties. It implies that non-marital relationships that meet the court’s requirements may be eligible for what would otherwise be considered matrimonial remedies.
- K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
It held that the freedom to make personal decisions free from unjustified state interference is part of the right to privacy, which was acknowledged as a fundamental right. The right also extends to the privacy of interpersonal relationships, including cohabitation, where people should be free to establish relationships without the fear of societal or government surveillance.
- S. Khushboo vs Kanniammal & Anr 2010 (5) SCC 600
The Supreme Court in this case affirmed live-in partnerships as an essential component of the fundamental right to life and personal freedom, in consonance with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also made clear that, even if society views it as immoral, choosing to live together does not automatically amount to a crime. This decision upheld the constitutional protection of personal preferences and individual liberty.
Conclusion:
In a nutshell,though the Uniform Civil Code 2024 of Uttarakhand aims to balance personal laws and give legal recognition to live-in relationships, the present legislation raises serious and genuine concerns regarding inclusivity, privacy, and dignity. The disclosure of sensitive personal information, the mandatory registration regime, and the participation of law enforcement and community authorities constitute a substantial intrusion into the private domain of consenting adults. These policies disproportionately affect women and marginalised groups, create an atmosphere that is conducive to social stigma and harassment, and run the risk of discouraging people from exercising their autonomy. The Code’s assertions of equality and uniformity are further undermined by its exclusion of LGBTQIA+ people and its inconsistencies with current marriage laws. Therefore, the UCC’s current approach to live-in relationships seems to put regulatory control ahead of the defence of fundamental rights, underscoring the urgent need for legislative improvement to guarantee that the law truly protects the interests of all people while upholding the constitutional values of nondiscrimination, privacy, and dignity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs):
Q). Under the UCC, who is eligible to live together?
Only adults over the legal age of 21 who are unmarried and heterosexual are eligible. The people between the 18- 21 age group need mandatory parental consent.
Q). What is the status of children from live-in relationships?
Children are granted inheritance and other legal rights by the UCC, which acknowledges them as legitimate.
Q). Does the law apply to people who don’t live in Uttarakhand?
Yes, it covers both non-residents living in the state and Uttarakhand residents living elsewhere.
Q). Is it possible for same-sex couples to register live-in relationships under the UCC?
No, homosexual couples are not currently allowed to register under the law.
Q). In the event that registration is rejected, what are the available legal options?
Couples have 30 days to challenge the registrar’s decision if their registration is rejected.
References: