Won't we get married, if we wanted to formalize our relationship: Live in couples over Uttarakhand proposal for mandatory registration

Uttarakhand's proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC) has generated controversy due to its requirement for mandatory registration of live-in relationships. This provision has elicited both support and criticism regarding its potential impact on individual rights, privacy, and social dynamics. The proposed law has sparked debate as it imposes penalties on live-in couples who do not submit declarations of their relationship to the state registrar. Failure to do so could result in imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of Rs 25,000, or both. Even a minor delay in registration, as brief as a month, could lead to imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of Rs 10,000, or both. When Lokmattimes.com spoke to Live-in couple here's what they have to say.

"The intention of law may be providing security to the couple, but it purely seems a way to prohibit live-in relationships under the pretext of safety. Why imprisonment? It is a personal matter. We will only consider marriage if we intend to formalize our relationship; why involve ourselves in live-in situations?" questions Kavita.

Originally from a small town in Nashik, Kavita moved to Mumbai for education in 2013 and later shifted to Pune for work. For the past three years, she has been in a live-in relationship without her parents' knowledge. Feeling that her parents would not understand given their background and mindset, Kavita believes live-in relationships are typically pursued by individuals who are far from home or come from more open-minded families. "Live-in relationships are a personal matter focused on testing compatibility before committing to marriage. He criticizes the criminalization of personal relationships, suggesting it will only empower vigilantes and fringe elements, particularly affecting vulnerable couples in non-Tier I cities," said Mahesh, Kavita's partner.

Mahesh is from Yevatmal, a small town in Maharashtra. "The whole point of such a relationship is not abided by law, checking the compatibility and committing to something like marriage, added Mahesh. Under the proposed legislation, individuals in live-in relationships must register with district officials within one month of initiating the relationship. A "summary inquiry" by the Registrar, which may involve summoning partners or others, will verify the validity of the relationship. Terminating a registered relationship requires a written statement, with the possibility of a police investigation if the reasons provided appear "incorrect" or "suspicious." "Police investigation is just an invasion of privacy, interfering straight in our bedroom, " added Mahesh.

In India, live-in relationships are often viewed as foreign concepts influenced by Western culture and are stigmatized within society. This stigma makes it challenging for couples to find accommodation, as many landlords prefer to rent only to families. Smita and Ranjit, an interfaith couple from Mumbai, highlight the difficulties they faced in securing housing due to their relationship status. Smita said, "We struggled to find a place to live; now, we tell people we are married to avoid discrimination. Once landlords learn of our live-in status, they significantly raise the rent. This registration requirement could leave us vulnerable, and the potential for imprisonment is excessive."

Smita and Ranjit, navigating the complexities of an interfaith relationship, have kept their relationship hidden from their parents and society. Despite these challenges, they plan to marry within the next year, illustrating how such legal provisions can impact individuals, particularly those in interfaith relationships, which have a tumultuous history in India.

Suresh Kole, a social activist focusing on gender and sexuality issues, who is also in a live-in relationship, believes that the inclusion of the live-in relationship clause in the Uniform Civil Code aims to exert control over interfaith or intercaste marriages. Kole warns that registrars may use their discretion to deny such relationships, potentially leading to punishment for those who fall in love outside caste lines or across religious boundaries.

The UCC also aims to provide security to women by allowing them to claim maintenance in the event of a relationship dissolution. While Kavita, who is financially independent, sees little personal benefit in this provision, she acknowledges its importance for women without a source of income. She added, "I would like the partner to be punished than asking for maintenance." Kranti from Ambernath, Mumbai, who is also in a live-in relationship, views the law positively in light of recent events, such as the Shraddha Waikar case, which underscores the need for legal protections. Kranti said, "It is good, that women have more power and can go to court when things go wrong. Many times family is not there to support. So having a law will be good. However, the law should consider all the perspectives before enforcing such legislation."