Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami announcing the implementation of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in Dehradun.
| Photo Credit: PTI
Uttarakhand recently implemented a Uniform Civil Code (UCC), governing various aspects of civil life. One of the novel aspects of the UCC is that it mandates compulsory registration of opposite-sex live-in relationships, and criminalises those engaged in unregistered non-marital cohabitation. While some of the provisions on live-in relationships are well intentioned, others are problematic and potentially dangerous.
Well intentioned, but…
The biggest concerns around non-marital cohabitation tend to be the protection of the interests of the party that is rendered needy (due to childcare or other household responsibilities or a lack of independent income, for example), and of the rights of any children born to the parties. The UCC goes some way towards addressing these concerns. It declares that children born in live-in relationships will be considered legitimate, which is an improvement on the existing position of law whereby only children born through void or voidable marriages (where a marriage takes place but is legally invalid) are deemed legitimate. The essential legal remedy of maintenance in the event of desertion by a live-in partner is also provided by the law, although desertion in this context remains undefined.
Two potential problems that might arise around these provisions need consideration. First, the maintenance provision might provide a legal recourse to a woman who has been deserted. However, there is no provision for maintenance upon termination (as opposed to desertion), and termination of a live-in relationship requires nothing more than a statement of termination to be submitted to the registrar by either party. This aligns with the informal and flexible nature of non-marital cohabitation but raises its own challenges. When a live-in relationship is terminated (without cause or scope for contestation), a woman may be left with no legal recourse despite needing continuing support. A related concern is that since only opposite-sex live-in relationships can be registered, the Uttarakhand government has left same-sex relationships entirely unprotected.
Second, the very definition of a ‘live-in relationship’ is nebulous and overbroad. Drawing from the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and case law on domestic violence, the UCC defines a ‘live-in relationship’ as a relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’. But live-in relationships are frequently not in the nature of a marriage. Parties may not see themselves as being ‘married in all but name’. Similarly, the one-month period provided for the registration of a live-in relationship appears to misunderstand the typical nature of such a relationship which does not usually have a formal date of commencement because the transformation of a casual sexual relationship, or non-cohabiting intimate sexual relationship, into a live-in relationship tends to be fluid. This legal-social mismatch is likely to compel the registration of sexual relationships that are, in fact, casual and do not require the kind of protections the UCC offers.
The right to sexual autonomy
There are graver problems with these provisions of the UCC. In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court recognised an adult’s right to positive sexual autonomy, encompassing the freedom to make one’s own choices about whether and with whom to have sexual interactions. While this is not an unconditional right (being subject to the consent of the other party, laws on public decency, etc.), the essence of the right is that neither the state, nor an adult’s family can interfere unreasonably with her consensual sexual choices. However, studies have demonstrated that parents and guardians, through legal (e.g., misuse of rape laws) and extra-legal (e.g., forms of social punishment including violence) means frequently undermine this right. Provisions regulating live-in relationships have the potential to enhance such parental control. The provisions in the UCC mandate that any live-in relationship be registered within one month of its commencement. While the age of sexual consent in India is 18 years, where either partner in the live-in relationship is younger than 21 years, the UCC states that information of the relationship will be sent to the person’s parent/guardian. In addition to being an unjustified violation of the adult’s right to privacy and sexual autonomy, this provision, by alerting disapproving parents/guardians to inter-caste or inter-religious relationships, in a context where honour-based violence is widespread, is dangerous.
The law also intensifies the control of the state over the sexual choices of individuals. The UCC requires that information of all registered live-in relationships be forwarded to the local police. Such a provision reflects a view of a live-in relationship as a potential law-and-order complication requiring state surveillance. This problematic understanding of the law is further reflected in the unsubstantiated criminalisation of the failure to register a live-in relationship for more than a month, or the refusal to register a live-in relationship after a notice to do so from the registrar — offences punishable by imprisonment and/or hefty fines.
In most jurisdictions which permit or mandate the registration of non-marital cohabitation, the purpose of the law is to extend welfare measures and safeguards available within a marriage to non-marital cohabitation. The Uttarakhand UCC, however, appears to conceptualise ‘live-in relationships’ as a problem to be solved through regulation. In doing so, the law erodes sexual autonomy and reinforces state and social control of sexual choices.
Shraddha Chaudhary, Assistant Professor, School of Law, BML Munjal University, Gurgaon
Published – February 11, 2025 01:17 am IST
