Abstract
This research paper delves into the discourse surrounding the proposal of mandatory registration for live-in relationships in India. Live-in relationships, once considered taboo, are increasingly prevalent in Indian society, prompting discussions on legal frameworks and social norms. This paper examines the rationale behind mandatory registration, its potential impact on individuals and society, and the legal and ethical considerations involved. Drawing on a combination of legal analysis, empirical research, and socio-cultural insights, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject. In India, the legality of live-in relationships is quite muzzled. Although live-in a relationship is neither a crime nor a sin, it is disapproved in Indian culture to some degree. In a nation like India, where weddings are seen as a societal foundation for legalising a man-woman connection, the notion of a live-in relationship has added a new dimension to the man-woman relationship. There are various judgements on live-in relationships; some are progressive, while some give regressive statements as well. As a result of these recent contradictory judgments, we must examine prior rulings of various Indian courts to clear up any doubt on the subject. As a result, the purpose of this article is to look into the legal consequences of live-in relationships in India. It starts by looking into the definition, legality, and issues of live-in relationships. It then goes on to outline the benefits for partners who want to pursue a live-in relationship, such as the right to maintenance, the right to inherit property, and the validity given to children born from live-in partnerships, etc.
Keywords:
Live-in relationships, Registration, Uniform Civil Code (UCC), Legal framework, Social norms, Marriage.
Introduction:
The UCC is in news because, recently, UCC was passed in the Uttarakhand Assembly, proposing common law on marriage, divorce, land, property and inheritance for all, irrespective of their religion in the state, excluding Scheduled tribes. The concept of the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India has sparked intense debate over the years. The aim is to replace personal laws rooted in religious customs with a standard set of laws applicable to all citizens regardless of their faith. UCC proponents argue that it would advance gender equality, social justice, and national unity by ensuring consistent rights and responsibilities in areas like marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption. However, there are concerns about potential infringement on cultural and religious autonomy, with critics fearing that a UCC could erode India’s diverse religious identities and traditions. Despite its divisive nature, the notion of a uniform civil code remains central to discussions on secularism and legal reform in the country. The State has become the first since pre-Independence Goa to adopt a uniform code for civil matters. What is particularly violative of the Constitution is the bizarre portion in this UCC aiming to formalise live-in relationships through registration. This unwanted incursion into citizens’ personal life is worsened by the prescription of a three-month prison term for non-registration. It will expose citizens to intrusive inquiries, social hostility and pointless deprivation of liberty. While it contains positive features such as conferring legitimacy on children born of live-in relations and mandating maintenance in the event of desertion, the very idea that people living together should submit themselves to registration and verification is repugnant to individual rights.
Research Methodology:
The research methodology for this paper involves a multi-faceted approach encompassing legal analysis, empirical research, and socio-cultural insights. Legal analysis includes studying relevant laws, court judgments, and legislative provisions concerning live-in relationships in India. Empirical research involves gathering data through surveys, interviews, or case studies to understand societal attitudes, experiences, and challenges related to live-in relationships. Socio-cultural insights entail examining cultural norms, historical context, and societal perceptions shaping the discourse around live-in relationships. This comprehensive methodology aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the subject, integrating legal, empirical, and socio-cultural perspectives. Secondary sources of information like newspapers, articles, journals and websites have been used for this research.
Review of Literature:
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. The literature review for this paper provides a comprehensive overview of the legal and social landscape surrounding live-in relationships in India, examining both historical context and contemporary developments. It delves into the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), highlighting the debate over its implementation and the recent legislative actions in Uttarakhand. Additionally, it discusses key legal provisions and landmark judgments pertaining to live-in relationships, shedding light on the evolving legal recognition and protection afforded to couples in such unions. Through this review, the paper sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of the arguments for and against mandatory registration of live-in relationships in India.
What is UCC?
Every segment of society, regardless of their religious affiliation, will receive equal treatment under a national civil code. This code applies uniformly to all citizens. It establishes consistent laws governing areas such as marriage, divorce, alimony, inheritance, adoption, and property succession. It eliminates any nexus between religion and law in contemporary society. This stems from Article 44 of the Constitution, which mandates that the state “shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India.” The provision is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV of the Constitution), which although not enforceable, play a pivotal role in the country’s governance.
Legal Existence:
Before independence, there was a suggestion to exclude the personal laws of Hindus and Muslims from such codification. This proposal was advocated during the drafting of the constitution. However, it was not incorporated due to resistance from religious extremists and a lack of public awareness at the time. Consequently, it was included in the Directive Principles of State Policy as Article 44.
In Shah Bano Case– According to Muslim personal law, maintenance was obligated only during the iddat period. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied to all citizens regardless of their religious affiliation. In its ruling, the Court advocated for the implementation of a uniform civil code.
“A belief seems to have gained ground that it is for the Muslim community to take a lead in the matter of reforms of their personal law. A Common Civil Code will help the cause of national integration by removing disparate loyalties to laws which have conflicting ideologies. No community is likely to bell the cat by making gratuitous concessions on this issue. It is the state which is charged with the duty of securing a uniform civil code for the citizens of the country and, unquestionably, it has the legislative competence to do so“, the court observed.
In Sarla Mudgal Case– Merely converting to Islam and subsequently entering into another marriage would not automatically dissolve the Hindu marriage under the act. Such actions would constitute an offense under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The SC order sought to disentangle Article 44 and personal laws from religious freedom.
“Article 44 is based on the concept that there is no necessary connection between religion and personal law in a civilised society. Article 25 guarantees religious freedom whereas Article 44 seeks to divest religion from social relations and personal law. Marriage, succession and like matters of a secular character cannot be brought within the guarantee enshrined under Articles 25, 26 and 27. The personal law of the Hindus, such as relating to marriage, succession and the like have a sacramental origin, in the same manner as in the case of Muslims or Christians. The Hindus along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have forsaken their sentiments in the cause of national unity and integration. Some other communities would not, though the Constitution enjoins the establishment of a “common civil code” for the whole of India,” the SC said then.
It further noted that even 41 years (after the introduction of the Hindu Code Bill in 1954), the rulers of the day were not in a mood to “retrieve Article 44 from the cold storage where it is lying since 1949“. “…When more than 80% of the citizens have already been brought under the codified personal law, there is no justification whatsoever to keep in abeyance, anymore, the introduction of “uniform civil code” for all citizens in India“, the court had observed.
In S.R. Bommai vs Union of India– The Supreme Court held secularism as a basic feature of the constitution.
The benefits of UCC are as follows:
- It promotes ‘one nation, one code’ policy.
- It provides for equal status to all citizens especially to the women and to the minority.
- It proposes for the Reduction of Vote Bank Politics.
- It benefits by providing a coherent legal system as specific personal laws are in violation of human rights.
Certain important features of UCC’s existence are:
- The first uniform civil code was given by the Portuguese in 1867 in Goa.
- The UCC allows for the equal division of income and property between husband and wife and also between children (both sons & daughters).
- Legal age of marriage for men is 21 and 18 for women.
- It requires compulsory registration of birth, marriage and death.
- According to UCC, the Muslims cannot practice polygamy or divorce through ‘Triple Talaq’.
- Prohibition of child marriage along with prohibition of marriages under prohibited degrees of relationships, which covers immediate family of the father, mother, grandfather & grandmother.
- Marriage- All the property and wealth owned or acquired should be commonly held by the couple.
- Divorce- Half of the property must go to wife.
- Death- Half ownership for the surviving member.
- Uttarakhand- First state after the independence of India to implement UCC.
- Distinction between the Ancestral Property and Self acquired Property is abolished in UCC.
- Elevation of Father as Class-I heir (Earlier females).
- Muslims can bequeath entire property through a will (Earlier 1/3rd max).
- Muslims to recognize of an equal share to daughter.
- Special marriage act provides for parents of the deceased to inherit along with children and grandchildren.
- Recognition of an equal right of a mother in inheritance.
- Same divorce proceedings for both males and females to be constituted.
- Compulsory registration of marriage.
- No concept of “illegitimate children”, i,e., children adopted, born through surrogacy or born through assisted reproductive technology, & illegitimate children will have equal rights as other legitimate children.
- Prohibition of bigamy or polygamy.
- ‘Live in relation’ to be registered with the authority.
Meanwhile, it does not address patriarchal provisions within Hindu civil law. For instance, under Hindu law, the guardianship of a minor boy or unmarried girl is initially granted to the father, and only after him, to the mother. “While technically a uniform civil code should have standardised provisions of marriage, divorce and succession for all, irrespective of their religious identity, it has selectively outlawed and criminalised personal laws and customary practices of religious minorities, especially Muslims,’’ said Namrata Mukherjee, senior resident fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
Method:
- Reviewing existing literature, legal provisions, and landmark judgments.
- Analyzing empirical data on societal attitudes towards live-in relationships.
- Assessing the potential impact of mandatory registration on individuals and society.
- Identifying legal and ethical considerations. Suggestions include:
- Advocating for legislative reforms based on constitutional principles.
- Emphasizing the importance of protecting individual rights and privacy.
- Promoting public awareness and education on legal rights in live-in relationships.
- Recommending further research to address remaining ambiguities and challenges.
A live- in relationship is an arrangement where a heterosexual couple lives together, without entering into a formal relationship called marriage. It need not necessarily involve sexual relations. Although the term ‘live-in relationship’ fails a precise definition, it refers to the domestic cohabitation between two unmarried individuals.
Mandatory registration of live-in relationships
A key highlight of The Uniform Civil Code of Uttarakhand, 2024 is that it mandates the obligatory registration of live-in relationships. Even those residents of Uttarakhand who are in a live-in relationship outside the state must submit a statement to the registrar of the state. “It shall be obligatory for partners to a live-in relationship within the State, whether they are residents of Uttarakhand or not, to submit a statement of live-in relationship under sub-section (1) of section 381 to the Registrar within whose jurisdiction they are so living,” Section 378 of the UCC bill said.
Those in a live-in relationship, or intending to get into one, will need to submit a statement and a website will collect details of live-in relationships, which will undergo verification by the District Registrar. The Registrar will conduct a “summary inquiry” which might include the persons or couple to provide additional information or evidence or be summoned for verification and to ensure that the relationship does not fall under any of the prohibited categories mentioned under Section 380 — if a partner is married or in another relationship, if he or she is a minor, and if his or her consent was obtained by “coercion, fraud or misrepresentation”. After conducting the inquiry, the registrar shall within 30 days of the receipt of the statement of live-in either register the relationship and issue a certificate or refuse to register the statement. The partners will be informed about the denial of registration in writing. The Bill mandates that the registrar has to forward a statement of the live-in relationship to the in-charge of the local police station for record and, in case either of the partners is less than 21 years of age, also inform the parents or guardians of such partners. Interestingly, it says that marriages may be solemnised or contracted between a man and a woman in accordance with the religious beliefs, practices, customary rites and ceremonies including but not limited to “Saptapadi”, “Ashirvad”, “Nikah”, “Holy Union”, “Anand Karaj” under The Anand Marriage Act 1909 as well as under, but not limited to, The Special Marriage Act, 1954 and Arya Marriage Validation Act, 1937.
The Bill says that whoever stays in a live-in relationship for more than one month without submitting the statement of such a relationship shall be punished on conviction by a judicial magistrate with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine not exceeding Rs 10,000 or both. If the individuals submit false information or withholds information during registration, they would also face a jail term of three months and an ever bigger fine of Rs 25,000. If any of the partners fails to submit the statement of live-in relationship on being required by a notice, they shall face a jail term of six months and Rs 25,000 fine.
The UCC Bill also declares that a child of a live-in relationship shall also be a legitimate child of the couple and mandates that if a woman gets deserted by her live-in partner, she shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her partner. Though, it does not specify the criteria for “desertion.” “If a woman gets deserted by her live-in partner, she shall be entitled to claim maintenance from her live-in partner for which she may approach the competent Court having jurisdiction over the place where they last cohabited, and in such a case the provisions contained in Chapter – 5, Part – 1 of this Code shall mutatis-mutandis apply,” the Section 388 of the Bill said.
Fines & Penalties imposed by UCC are as follows:
- Both the parties can face upto 3 months jail or fine of ₹10,000, if live-in relation is not registered. Providing false information for the same will invite up to ₹25,000 or 3 months jail.
- UCC mandates registration of marriage within 60 days, failing which will attract a fine up to ₹20,000.
However, provisions of UCC will not apply to scheduled tribes in the state whose traditional rights have been protected under Section 21 of the Constitution.
Not surprisingly, the proposed law has sparked criticism from legal experts.
“A few years ago the Supreme Court had ruled that privacy was a fundamental right. The state has no business regulating intimate relationships between consenting adults and what makes this provision worse is the penal consequence a couple may end up facing for not getting the relationship registered . This is an appalling provision and must be struck down,” says Rebecca John, a senior Supreme Court lawyer.
Currently, live-in relationships in India are referenced under the 2005 domestic violence laws, defining “domestic relationship” as, among other things, a connection between two individuals “in the nature of marriage”.
Certainly, while cohabiting unmarried couples are not entirely uncommon in India’s larger cities, particularly as young individuals relocate for employment and defer traditional marriages, societal attitudes towards live-in relationships remain complex. A 2018 survey of over 160,000 households revealed that 93% of married Indians reported having arranged marriages, with only 3% reporting “love marriages.” However, perceptions vary among different demographics. For instance, a May 2018 poll by Inshorts found that over 80% of millennials viewed live-in relationships as taboo, yet a 2023 survey by Lionsgate Play suggested that half of Indians believe living together is crucial for understanding a partner. Despite these shifting attitudes, India’s courts have occasionally expressed disapproval towards live-in relationships, with a 2012 Delhi court dismissing them as “immoral” and a product of Western influence.
Dhami described it a “historic moment” and said that his government had introduced the Bill in the assembly taking along all sections of the society. “That historic moment is near for Devbhoomi when Uttarakhand will become a strong pillar of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of ‘Ek Bharat, Shresth Bharat’,” said Dhami.
“The mandatory registration of live-in relationships is intrusive and definitely in breach of the fundamental right to privacy as it forces you to submit yourself to the state on something as intimate as a personal relationship,” says Alok Prasanna Kumar, Co-Founder and Lead at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy in Bengaluru. He points out that the discretion afforded to the Registrar to conduct an inquiry can disproportionately impact inter-faith and inter-religious couples and make them susceptible to greater scrutiny.
Following Uttarakhand’s footsteps, two other BJP-ruled States, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, have appointed committees to initiate the formulation of a UCC. This, Mr. Kumar says, effectively defeats the purpose of Article 44 since the Constitution framers did not intend for every State to have its own different version of a UCC.
Over time, with the process of modernization, India’s social landscape has witnessed certain favorable transformations. Several judicial verdicts have challenged age-old societal norms. However, certain societal realities, particularly those perceived through the lens of patriarchy, continue to face resistance; live-in relationships exemplify this dichotomy. While a segment of the Indian populace has embraced this concept, a significant portion remains steadfastly opposed to it. Despite attempts by films like “Luka Chhuppi” to normalize such relationships in bollywood and regional cinema, criticisms persist.
Personal versus constitutional morality
Nonetheless, Shreya Munoth, an attorney based in Delhi, elucidated that despite the Supreme Court’s adoption of numerous progressive stances, numerous Indian judges often lean on their personal moral convictions when adjudicating cases involving live-in relationships.”The problem is that any order passed regarding live-in relationships is entirely dependent on the moral judgment of the judge hearing the case,” said Munoth and added, “This becomes a big issue in cases where couples seek protection from the state.“
For instance, in October 2023, a court declined to provide police protection to a couple who expressed feeling unsafe following accusations of “kidnapping” filed by the girl’s family against the man. The woman asserted her right as an adult to make decisions regarding her future and to cohabit with her partner. However, the court dismissed the couple’s concerns, stating that they would only be taken seriously if they chose to marry. The presiding judges characterized live-in relationships as fleeting infatuations lacking in stability and sincerity. For many young couples in India seeking to live together, the reality remains daunting. Frequently, they must conceal their arrangements from their families and sometimes even from their workplaces.
Lawyer Munoth said that apart from the necessary attitudinal shift in society, “the problem is that we don’t have any anti-discriminatory laws in place and so couples can be harshly judged and badly discriminated against for wanting to live together.”
Legal Framework for Live-in Relationships in India
There is no specific provision for live-in relationships under Indian law. However, certain laws and court judgments have acknowledged the rights of couples in live-in relationships and afforded them legal protection.
Key provisions related to live-in relationships in India include:
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: While this act doesn’t explicitly recognize live-in relationships, it does acknowledge a woman’s right to maintenance from her partner in case of separation. Courts have interpreted that a woman in a live-in relationship can claim maintenance under this act if the relationship is akin to marriage.
Domestic Violence Act, 2005: This act provides protection to women in domestic relationships, including those in live-in relationships, against violence and abuse. It recognizes live-in relationships as akin to marriage and offers protection to women in such unions.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006: These rules outline the procedure for seeking protection orders, residence orders, and monetary reliefs by women in live-in relationships.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act, 2013: This amendment includes “relationship in the nature of marriage” within the definition of “domestic relationship,” encompassing live-in relationships and granting protection under the act.
Indian Penal Code,: The IPC covers criminal liability for offenses like rape, adultery, and bigamy, which can apply in cases of live-in relationships.
While there’s no specific law for live-in relationships, the Indian legal system offers certain protections and rights to couples through various judgments and provisions.
Landmark Judgments For Live-in Relationships:
Several landmark judgments in India have contributed to legal recognition and protection for live-in relationships:
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal: The Supreme Court laid down criteria to determine if a non-marital relationship qualifies as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Domestic Violence Act.
S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Anr.: The Supreme Court affirmed the legality and morality of live-in relationships, asserting the right of adults to cohabit even without marriage.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma: The Supreme Court ruled that women in live-in relationships are entitled to protection and maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.
Payal Sharma v. N. Talwar: The Delhi High Court recognized the rights of women in live-in relationships under the Hindu Marriage Act and granted maintenance to children born from such unions under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.
Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand: The Supreme Court held that couples in long-term live-in relationships can be deemed married, addressing social stigma and discrimination against such unions.
These judgments have significantly contributed to legal recognition and protection for live-in relationships in India, combating societal stigma and discrimination against couples in such unions.
Conclusion:
Due to legislative oversight, individuals in live-in relationships lack protection under a defined set of rules or regulations. The existing legal framework in India concerning live-in relationships primarily stems from a series of comparatively progressive judicial rulings.
The Indian judiciary has, on numerous occasions, distinguished between social morality and constitutional morality by recognizing and safeguarding the rights of individuals in live-in relationships.
In India, the status of live-in relationships remains ambiguous, as the majority consensus has yet to be achieved. They continue to be stigmatized within Indian society, often viewed as immoral and improper unions that challenge traditional social norms. Despite being non-offensive due to the absence of specific legislation prohibiting such relationships, they are subject to ongoing debate as they pose challenges to established social structures.
The Indian judiciary has taken significant strides in recognizing and validating live-in relationships, particularly in safeguarding the interests of women and children born from such unions. However, the absence of legislation specifically addressing matters like succession, maintenance, and guardianship concerning live-in relationships leaves certain aspects unresolved.
Efforts to provide legal protection for individuals in live-in relationships are crucial to prevent abuse and ensure their rights are upheld. It is imperative for the law to adapt to the evolving societal landscape. While Indian courts have attempted to clarify various aspects of live-in relationships through their judgments, uncertainties persist.
There is an urgent need for comprehensive rules and regulations tailored to address the rights of partners in live-in relationships and their children. Not all live-in relationships should be granted legal recognition; rather, only those meeting specific criteria should be considered. Simultaneously, there must be increased awareness among live-in partners about the legal implications of their arrangement.
Happy Kushwah
The ICFAI University, Jaipur