Mandatory Registration: Opposite-sex live-in relationships must be registered within one month.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance)
- Criminalisation: Failure to register a live-in relationship or refusal to do so after notice is punishable by imprisonment or fines.
- Legitimacy of Children: Children born in live-in relationships are deemed legitimate.
- Maintenance Rights: Provides maintenance rights in case of desertion but not upon voluntary termination.
- State Surveillance: All registered live-in relationships must be reported to the local police.
Potential Issues and Criticism
Legal and Social Mismatch
- Undefined ‘Desertion’: While maintenance is granted in cases of desertion, the term remains legally vague.
- No Maintenance for Termination: A partner (especially a woman) left without financial support if the relationship ends voluntarily.
- Ambiguous Definition of Live-in Relationships: Drawn from domestic violence law, assumes they are ‘marriage-like’, which does not reflect reality.
- Fluid Nature of Relationships Overlooked: Many live-in relationships do not have a clear starting point, making mandatory registration impractical.
Violation of Sexual Autonomy and Privacy
State and Parental Control Over Adults:
- If a partner is under 21, their parents/guardians are informed—violating privacy and increasing risks of honour-based violence.
- Contradicts Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018), where the Supreme Court upheld an adult’s right to sexual autonomy.
Police Surveillance:
- Conceptualises live-in relationships as potential law-and-order problems.
- Creates undue state interference in personal lives.
Exclusion and Discrimination
- Same-Sex Relationships Ignored: UCC mandates registration only for opposite-sex live-in relationships, leaving same-sex couples without legal protections.
- Moral Policing?: Unlike global laws that extend marital benefits to cohabiting couples, Uttarakhand’s UCC treats live-in relationships as a problem to regulate rather than protect.
Conclusion
The UCC’s approach prioritises control over protection, undermining individual rights. Instead of ensuring welfare and legal safeguards, the law increases state and social surveillance.
