Well-intentioned provisions
The UCC aims to protect parties in non-marital cohabitation, particularly women who might be left needy (due to childcare, lack of income) and children born in live-in relationships.
It ensures that children born in live-in relationships are considered legitimate, which is an improvement over previous laws.
The law provides maintenance for deserted partners, though "desertion" remains undefined, creating potential legal gaps.
Problems with Maintenance & Relationship Termination
Maintenance provisions are only available in cases of desertion, not when a live-in relationship is terminated by mutual consent.
Termination requires just a statement to the registrar, which can leave a deserted partner without support.
The law only applies to opposite-sex live-in relationships, leaving same-sex relationships unprotected.
Vague Definitions & Overreach
The definition of "live-in relationship" as “in the nature of marriage” is broad, potentially applying to casual relationships that don’t need legal protections.
The one-month registration period does not match the fluid nature of many live-in relationships.
This forces informal relationships to be registered, even when they don't align with the UCC’s intended protections.
Violation of Sexual Autonomy
The law infringes on the right to sexual autonomy by requiring registration within a month, with the partner’s parents being informed if the person is under 21.
This could expose young people to parental control, especially in cases of inter-caste or inter-religious relationships, leading to honor-based violence.
The law mandates that all registered live-in relationships be reported to the police, increasing state surveillance of private, consensual relationships.
Criminalization of Non-Registration
The UCC criminalizes the failure to register a live-in relationship or refusal to comply with a registrar’s notice, imposing fines and imprisonment.
This suggests a view of live-in relationships as a legal problem rather than a private choice, further eroding personal freedom and autonomy.
State and Social Control
Unlike laws in other jurisdictions that aim to extend welfare protections to non-marital cohabitation, the Uttarakhand UCC treats live-in relationships as a problem requiring regulation.
This creates a balance between providing legal rights and enforcing state control over personal, private matters, undermining the individual’s freedom to make consensual decisions.
COMMENTS