Editorial: Love bugged

The Uttarakhand government recently clarified that strict provisions have been made in the recently implemented Uniform Civil Code (UCC) to maintain confidentiality of information given at the time of registration of marriage, divorce and live-in relationships, and no detail recorded in the registration will be accessible to any third person. Uttarakhand implemented the UCC last month and became the first state in independent India to do so. Under UCC, registration of marriage, divorce and inheritance as well as live-in relationships has been made mandatory.

Interestingly, a recent PIL said that while marriages and divorces are lengthy procedures, a live-in relationship only needs an application to enter into a relationship or be terminated. What the PIL failed to address was the fact that the requirements for entering and exiting a live-in relationship are more cumbersome than that of a marriage. While applicants under 21 require parental consent, those intending on cohabiting need to mandatorily register the start and end of cohabitation, fill up a 16-page form that must be validated through the Aadhaar, and of course, pay a fee for registration. The penalty for non-compliance is imprisonment.

Legal experts have pointed out how the new live-in legislation can be weaponised by the kin of the applicants who could object to a consensual inter-faith or inter-caste relationship. The UCC permits complaints from any third party which could not only include relatives but even neighbours or fringe elements like extremists. What’s also worth pointing out is that only opposite-sex live-in relationships can be registered, as per the UCC mandate in Uttarakhand, which essentially leaves same-sex couples entirely unprotected.

On the reformative side, an essential legal remedy of maintenance in the event of desertion by a live-in partner has been provided by the law, as it declares children born in live-in relationships to be legitimate. But the definition of desertion is a murky area, as there is no provision for maintenance upon termination of a relationship. Stakeholders have pointed out that registering a live-in relationship or even a marriage has no impact on preventing domestic crimes against women (dowry harassment, marital rape, desertion) or crimes against men (physical or mental harassment and the threat of bodily harm, and abetment to suicide).

The nebulous nature of legislations pertaining to marital or cohabitation-based relationships in India becomes evident when you consider recent developments. The Allahabad High Court recently granted bail to a man accused of raping his inter-faith live in partner on the promise of marriage. The bail was granted on the promise of the accused marrying the survivor under the Special Marriage Act and making arrangements for a deposit of Rs 5 lakh. A similar case from 2024 entailed the same High Court granting bail to a rape accused on the condition that he marry the survivor and that he care for the latter and the newborn child. Legal advisors viewed these two instances as a classic case of the state neglecting its responsibility of providing welfare measures for survivors and children born out of such crimes.

With regard to live-in relationships, one of the biggest pain points is the manner in which the UCC intensifies the state’s control over the privacy, sexual preferences or bodily autonomy of consenting adults. The UCC requires that all data pertaining to registered live-in relationships is forwarded to the local police, essentially endowing such unions with a connotation of a law and order issue that requires state surveillance.