“Uniform Civil Code” means the common civil code or common law for every citizen of a territory. Article 44 of the Constitution of India talks about Uniform Civil Code (UCC). It states that the “State shall endeavour to provide for its citizens a uniform civil code (UCC) throughout the territory of India.”
Although implementation of the Uniform civil code has been a highly controversial topic due to various arguments, Uttarakhand became the first Indian state to implement UCC after independence. Prior to this, Goa was the only state where UCC was implemented , that too was implemented by the Portuguese in 1867 i.e, before independence.
The implementation of UCC by Uttarakhand has not been easy and till date there are numerous issues that arise. One such significant feature of Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code is the rules regarding “Live-in relationships.”The new law requires that all live-in relationships must be registered with authorities. For those in live-in relationships involving individuals under the age of 21, parental consent will be required. If individuals fail to register their live-in relationships or provide false information, they could face penalties including jail time for up to three months, a fine of ₹25,000, or both.
The law’s provisions apply not only to residents of Uttarakhand but also to any individuals in a live-in relationship outside the state. Additionally, a delay of even one month in the registration process could lead to fines or imprisonment.
CONTENTIONS RAISED :
BY PETITIONERS :
This provision of the code has been a bone of contention among various groups and eventually was challenged in the high court of Uttarakhand. Almasuddin Siddiqui and Ikram, have challenged it, stating that it violates the fundamental rights of Muslims and other citizens, and is against essential religious practices of the Muslim community. They argued that this provision impinges upon the fundamental rights of the citizens. According to family law and women’s rights attorneys, the protections that live-in relationship registration is purportedly intended to provide—namely, to protect the rights of the female partner and any children from the live-in relationship—are already provided by the current legal system. Few examples of which are as follows ; The Court held in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) that women in live-in relationships that resemble marriages are eligible to protection under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010), the Court decided that in a live-in relationship that is similar to marriage, dependent women can obtain maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. In Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2011), the Supreme Court held that, in accordance with Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, children born into live-in relationships are legitimate and entitled to inherit property.
BY RESPONDENTS :
Following the Chief Justice’s request for explanation regarding Section 387(1) of the law, which makes it illegal to not register live-in relationships and subsequent punishment , Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the central government and Uttarakhand, requested six weeks to respond to the petition. “We will put in a reply, There is a justification for this. We have conducted a study and there are several destitute women”. Mehta added. The solicitor general also contented that this provision of registration of live in relationship is for women’s empowerment.
OBSERVATIONS MADE BY JUDGES :
Chief Justice G Narender asked the opposition In his oral observations, what was wrong in regulating live-in relationships. “There is also a fallout of this. What happens if this relationship breaks up? What if there is a child out of this relationship? In respect of marriage, there is a presumption regarding paternity but in a live-in relationship, where is that presumption? In the garb of invasion of your privacy, can the self-respect of another person be sacrificed, that too when he is your child and there is no proof of marriage… or paternity,” he said.
The CJ said that live-ins are already recognised under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. “The problem is not just about women — though the lady will face a certain amount of problems — but of proving paternity… If there is a registration, this would certainly help,” he said. He was of the view that despite the live in relationships being recognised in various laws, registration of this could be a game changer and could be very helpful in matters where there is dispute related to paternity of a child.The burden of proving of which often falls on the mother, who may face social pressure and legal hurdles.
WAY FORWARD :
Despite being more prevalent, live-in partnerships are still ambiguous under Indian law. There is no defined legal structure governing live-in relationships, in contrast to marriages, which are subject to particular rights and obligations. Potential risks arise from the lack of established regulations, particularly when minors are involved. The Uttarakhand High Court’s observations on live-in relationships are significant because they bring much-needed attention to this evolving social reality.
Akshita Garg is a career driven law student at Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, blending analytical precision with a passion for justice. With a foundation in Botany from Hansraj College, she brings a unique perspective to legal research and advocacy. Her experience spans legal drafting, research, and social impact initiatives, gained through internships at leading firms and NGOs. Known for her critical thinking and effective communication, she is committed to navigating the complexities of law to drive meaningful change.
