From Samosas to Samjhautas: Can We Agree on Live-in Relationships Yet?

Dear Policy Pals,

As Valentine's Day approaches, hearts flutter with anticipation, and love is in the air. But this year, there's more to this romantic holiday than meets the eye.

February 6th marked a significant moment in India's legal landscape as the Uttarakhand government announced the 'Uniform Civil Code Uttarakhand 2024 Bill' (draft UCC Bill) in the state legislative assembly. While the bill encompasses various provisions capturing public attention, one particular aspect has emerged as a focal point of discussion: Part III, which addresses the regulation of 'Live-in Relationships'.

This provision is noteworthy as, until now, live-in relationships have not been explicitly governed by any law in India. The introduction of regulations in this area signals a notable shift in the legal framework surrounding personal relationships, sparking debates and raising questions about the implications and nuances of such legislation.

Come learn more about it with me! I'm Jazreen Deboo and every two weeks, I bring you stories of policies with a purpose through three sections of this newsletter - (1) Once Upon a Time (storytelling), (2) Comic Relief (memes and cartoons) and (3) Padho aur Badho (thematic book recommendations).

+Click subscribe to be notified of future editions

Once Upon a Time

"Jaa Simran Jaa, Jee le apni zindagi"

In the iconic love story of "Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge," Simran and Raj's journey took a dramatic turn as they boarded a train to Uttarakhand together. As they embarked on this new chapter of their lives, the couple found themselves faced with a crucial decision: whether to embrace the freedom of their newfound love through a live-in relationship.

Amidst the picturesque backdrop of Dehradun, where they sought refuge from their families' disapproval, Simran and Raj grappled with the complexities of their unconventional love story. For Simran, raised in a traditional Indian household where marriage was the ultimate goal, the idea of living together outside the bounds of matrimony was both exhilarating and daunting. She wrestled with the fear of societal judgment and the uncertainty of navigating a relationship without the security of marital vows.

Raj, on the other hand, brought with him a sense of adventure and a willingness to challenge the status quo. He saw their decision as a natural progression of their love. He believed in the power of their bond to withstand any obstacle, including the stigma attached to live-in relationships.

As they settled into their new life together, Simran and Raj faced many challenges. Finding a place to live proved to be their first hurdle, as they encountered resistance from landlords hesitant to rent to an unmarried couple. Despite the setbacks, they persevered, eventually finding a cozy apartment where they could begin their journey as partners.

Yet, their decision to cohabit did not come without its share of internal conflicts and external pressures. Simran grappled with feelings of guilt and uncertainty, torn between her desire for independence and the cultural expectations instilled in her since childhood. Raj, meanwhile, struggled to reassure her, understanding the weight of her internal struggles while also grappling with his own doubts and insecurities.

In the absence of clear legal frameworks surrounding live-in relationships in India, Simran and Raj grappled with uncertainty regarding their rights and protections. Issues such as property ownership, inheritance rights, and child custody were murky waters, leaving them vulnerable and unprotected.

As Simran and Raj sat together in their modest apartment, the news report flashing on the television screen grabbed their attention. "Live-in relationships to be registered under new Uttarakhand law," the headline declared, sending a shiver down Simran's spine and causing Raj's brow to furrow with concern.

For Simran and Raj, this announcement was more than just breaking news—it was a potential game-changer in their lives. Many years of defying conventions, weathering judgment, and forging their own path had led them to this moment: a shared space filled with love, laughter, and dreams of a future together.

The prospect of registering their live-in relationship under the new law brought a whirlwind of emotions. On one hand, there was a glimmer of hope that formal recognition would bring an end to their uncertain existence, alleviating the need for secrecy and the fear of societal scrutiny. But on the other hand, there was apprehension. Would legal recognition be a blessing or a curse? How would their families, rooted in tradition, react to this bold step? Could their love withstand the rigors of legality and the judgment of society?

Rahul reached out and took Simran's hand in his, his touch a reassuring anchor amidst the storm of uncertainty. "Whatever happens," he said, his voice filled with determination and unwavering support, "we'll face it together."

The legal recognition of live-in relationships in India has undergone significant evolution over the past decade, marking a paradigm shift in the country's legal landscape.

In 2010, the concept of live-in relationships received legal validation, with women in such partnerships being protected under domestic violence laws. This recognition aimed to ensure the safety and well-being of women in non-marital unions.

Twelve years later, the Supreme Court of India further solidified the legitimacy of live-in partnerships by acknowledging the rights of children born out of such relationships. The court affirmed that children from live-in relationships are entitled to rights under a co-parenting agreement and have the right to inherit property, thus bolstering the legal standing of such unions.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court clarified that living together as partners without marriage is not illegal or criminal. While partners in live-in relationships do not possess the same legal rights as married couples, they are entitled to certain legal protections under specific laws, especially concerning children born out of such relationships.

In light of these legal developments, the Uttarakhand Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, introduced in the state legislative assembly, aims to provide a legal framework for live-in relationships.

It defines live-in relationships as relationship between a man and a woman cohabiting in a shared household through a relationship in the nature of marriage.

Under the proposed legislation, partners in a live-in relationship, defined as a man and a woman, are required to submit a statement to the registrar detailing their union. The registrar then conducts a summary inquiry within 30 days, during which partners may be asked to provide additional information or evidence if necessary. The registrar also notifies the local police and informs parents if either partner is under 21 years old.

If the registrar is satisfied with the inquiry, the relationship is entered into a register, and a certificate is issued. However, registration may be refused if one partner is married, a minor, or if consent to the relationship is obtained through coercion or fraud.

Partners can terminate the relationship by submitting a statement to the registrar and providing a copy to their partner.

Failure to submit the live-in relationship statement within the specified timeframe may result in punishment, including up to three months in prison, a fine of up to 10,000 rupees or both. Additionally, making false statements or withholding information about the relationship may lead to a three-month prison term, a fine of up to 25,000 rupees, or both.

The proposed law mandates the registration of all live-in relationships and prohibits such unions where one partner is already married. The bill also ensures that women deserted by their live-in partners are entitled to maintenance, and children born within such unions are considered legitimate.

Despite the intentions of the UCC Bill to codify and regulate live-in relationships, it has faced opposition from various quarters.

The Indian National Congress, the main opposition in the state, has raised concerns about potential infringement on individual freedoms to pursue alternative lifestyles. Additionally, Muslim parliamentarians have criticized the bill, arguing that it may polarize society and is incompatible with India's diverse cultural fabric.

Some believe this regulation is scary and the "government's way of tracking inter-faith couples in the State."

Reflect:

• Does the proposed regulation of live-in relationships in Uttarakhand infringe upon individuals' personal freedom and autonomy?
• Will mandatory registration and regulation of live-in relationships contribute to stigmatization and societal judgment against individuals who choose non-traditional relationship structures?
• What privacy concerns might arise from requiring couples to disclose intimate details of their relationships to government authorities?
• Should imprisonment and fines be enforced for non-compliance with the proposed regulation?
• How might the proposed regulation disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, including marginalized communities and survivors of domestic violence?
• What opportunities for abuse may arise from mandatory registration and reporting requirements in cases of domestic disputes or coercion within live-in relationships?
• What ethical considerations arise from imposing legal requirements on intimate relationships?
• Why is the LGBT community excluded from this?

Article 44 of India's constitution encourages a "uniform civil code" across religions. While official reasons are unclear, the Uttarakhand UCC Bill's live-in regulations might be aiming for protection of women, social reform, or even revenue generation. Regardless, the debate highlights the complex balancing act between rights, change, tradition, and the state's role in personal relationships.

Young people in Uttarakhand believe that this regulation "could increase blackmail and other crimes against women who choose not to register. Couples will fear harassment from police for being unregistered and might opt for unsafe alternative stays, harming the inbound tourism."

Across the globe, live-in relationships encounter diverse legal realities. Some countries like Denmark offer near-identical rights to marriage through registered partnerships, while others like Israel grant limited common-law recognition for specific purposes. France's PACS grants some marital benefits, while Germany offers similar rights yet restricts joint adoption for registered partners. Sweden's unique "sambo" system automatically recognizes cohabiting couples with partial rights, and even countries without civil marriage like Israel might offer limited common-law recognition.

Comic Relief

Padho aur Badho

The Politics of Personal Law in South Asia

"The Politics of Personal Law in South Asia" provides a comprehensive analysis of how religion, politics, and law intersect to shape personal laws in countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. The book explores the historical, socio-political, and legal factors influencing personal laws related to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and family matters. It examines the tensions between religious traditions and modern legal frameworks, the impact of colonial legacies and post-colonial nation-building efforts, and the role of gender, class, and ethnicity in shaping personal law reforms. It offers valuable insights into the complex dynamics of legal pluralism and the politics of personal law in South Asia.